Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 15 December.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 15 December.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Chief Constable

Rev. Ian Paisley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many days the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland has been out of Northern Ireland on official business from October 1982 to October 1983; for what purposes; and how these absences compare with each previous year since his appointment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The number of occasions on which the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is out of Northern Ireland on official business, and the reasons for his absence, are matters for the Chief Constable himself and the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. I understand, however, that from 1 October 1982 to 7 October 1983 the Chief Constable undertook 16 duty engagements outside Northern Ireland, involving a total absence of 43 days.
In the two preceding 12-month periods, the comparable figures were 30 days and 31 days respectively.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the year during which the Chief Constable was absent for that period many of his officers were murdered, many of the officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve were murdered, many civilians were murdered and many members of the Ulster Defence Regiment were murdered? He was out of the country for more than a month in a 

period of 12 months. What duties was he carrying out? Was the Police Authority responsible for his transport, for his hotel bills and for his air fare while he was absent?

Mr. Scott: The Chief Constable was out of the country on official business. He had the permission of the Police Authority, and it would have covered his expenses. think that it is very much to the credit of the Royal Ulster Constabulary that it has as Chief Constable a man who is in great demand to represent the force internationally. The work that he does in liaison with other police forces contributes significantly to the battle against terrorism in the Province.

Mr. John David Taylor: As it has been reported in the press that the Chief Commissioner of the Garda Siochana is hesitant about meeting the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, can the Minister confirm that this means that the Chief Constable will be out of Northern Ireland for fewer days next year? Will he comment on that report?

Mr. Scott: I think that Northern Ireland is immensely fortunate to have a man of such integrity as the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary dedicating his energies and skills to the battle against terrorism. All I can say on the point that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned is that co-operation between the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary has never been better.

Irish Congress of Trades Unions

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what issues were discussed when he met the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions on 28 November 1983; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): My right hon. Friend's discussion with the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions covered a wide range of economic and other issues, including several employment matters, public expenditure, privatisation, energy policy and industrial promotion.

Mr. Nellist: When the Secretary of State met the Northern Ireland committee, how did he explain the fact that long-term male unemployment in Northern Ireland has risen under this Government from 37 per cent. of unemployed men in 1979 to 48 per cent. now? Strabane has 50 per cent. male unemployment and unemployment in Northern Ireland is twice as high as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. How did the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Northern Ireland committee that he expects support for sectarianism in the north of Ireland to decline, if the economic conditions of mass unemployment and poverty, which fuel that support, are not reduced?

Mr. Butler: Although I was not present on that occasion, I have no doubt that the members of the Northern Ireland committee and my right hon. Friend agreed that the levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland were far too high. Doubtless they might also have agreed that unemployment has an impact on security. That is why Her Majesty's Government are prepared to place the current level of financial support behind the Province. It is on the record of the meeting that the members of the committee congratulated the Government on having


helped to secure orders for Harland and Wolff, which is largely male employing. They congratulated Shorts on the orders which it is obtaining, again an undertaking which is largely male employing. They congratulated the Government, too, on concluding the deal with the Republic of Ireland Government on Kinsale gas, which will provide many jobs.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall deal with points of order afterwards. If they are taken now, time will be taken from Question Time.

Mr. Archer: Why is the Minister reporting on a meeting at which he was not present? Can he comment on press reports that the Secretary of State is considering the establishment of an investment bank for Northern Ireland to deal with the real problem of high interest rates? If that is so, can he indicate how is it proposed that the bank should be financed? What will be the control structure and what will be the criteria for obtaining low-interest loans?

Mr. Butler: First, I have said nothing which has not been said publicly before. Secondly, if an investment bank is set up it will operate on commercial lines. I imagine that interest rates will reflect that. An interest relief grant is available to the Industrial Development Board and to the Local Enterprise Development Unit, which may help when interest charges are an especial burden on a company which is trying to invest.

Security

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): Sadly I have to inform the House that since I last answered questions on 10 November, two members of the RUC, one UDR soldier and nine civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation. The brutal murder of three of these civilians in the attack on Mountain Lodge Pentecostal hall on 20 November, about which I made a statement to the House the next day, and the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Edgar Graham, about which my hon. Friend the Minister of State made a statement yesterday, clearly demonstrate the barbarity of terrorism.
Despite the difficulties and dangers, members of the security forces have continued with their dedicated efforts to combat terrorist crime in all its forms. So far this year 580 people have been charged with terrorist-type offences, including 66 with murder and 59 with attempted murder, 204 weapons, over 34,000 rounds of ammunition and 3,762 lb of explosives have been recovered in the same period. The Government and the security forces will not be diverted from their tasks.

Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is now his duty to remain in post to restore security in Northern Ireland, and by every word, act and deed convey to the terrorists the simple message that they will not win?

Mr. Prior: It is not often that I agree with my hon. Friend, but on this occasion I agree wholeheartedly with everything that he has said.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is not a proper excuse for security

spokespersons to say that victims of terrorism did not ask for special protection, especially when they were aware of the dangers and when they tell us that the security authorities know best? Will he further accept that no responsible politician would ask for personal protection which could not be provided for his constituents?

Mr. Prior: Yes. I should like to make it plain that I realise the intensity of the hon. Gentleman's feelings, which I fully understand and share. It would be unreasonable if the decision whether protection was to be given was left to the individual, including the decision to ask for it. If the police think that there is that degree of risk, they should say that protection is to be given, and it should be given. I do not suggest that it was the responsibility of Mr. Edgar Graham to ask for protection.
I understand that inquiries were made through the offices of the hon. Gentleman following the expression of his view that there was a threat to Mr. Graham. I am sorry to take a little time in dealing with this supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Graham was seen and advised about the additional protection which he could take himself and which could be offered to him. He was not considered to be at greater risk than many others and there was no intelligence to suggest that he was a specific target. The RUC's problem is that it receives information from the public about specific threats and targets each day. It then has to form a judgment on how much protection it is able to give. It is not possible to protect everyone in these circumstances. I wish to remove any idea that it was up to Mr. Graham to ask for protection. It certainly was not.

Mr. Peter Robinson: In the light of the terrorist statistics which the Secretary of State has outlined, will he state which of the following propositions he believes to be the more unreasonable: that Northern Ireland Members should request meetings with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland about incidents in their constituencies, or that the Chief Constable should refuse all such meetings?

Mr. Prior: The Chief Constable is responsible for security and I wish to make it plain that he must make his own decisions. He is responsible to the Police Authority. I believe that Northern Ireland is extremely fortunate in having a man of the integrity of the present Chief Constable. He is faced with extremely difficult problems. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the Chief Constable's relationship with Members of Parliament. There is a problem there, but, in the specific and special circumstances of Northern Ireland, it must be for the Chief Constable to decide whom he sees and whom he does not. I have offered a meeting with the political leaders at which both the Chief Constable and the GOC would be present. I shall ascertain whether there are other ways of making a meeting possible.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I return to the question of the tragic death of Mr. Edgar Graham yesterday? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the allegation that Mr. Graham made in the Assembly recently, which was that so-called Loyalist paramilitaries and Republican paramilitaries were collaborating to kill Ulster politicians, who have a much more difficult job than any of us in this place? Is there any evidence that the allegation made by Mr. Graham of collaboration between killers, who have more in common with one another than they do with anyone else, was true?

Mr. Prior: There is no specific evidence, although there is a good deal of anecdotal evidence to that effect. I join the right hon. Gentleman in saying that those who take the responsibility of democratic government in Northern Ireland have an extraordinarily difficult job to undertake. I should like to thank them for the part that they play.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the unending abominations and atrocities that come from the troubled Province of Northern Ireland, there is great support for him in all corners of the House as he undertakes his duties, and that many hon. Members are prepared to ensure that whatever resources are necessary are provided to help him to restore law and order in the Province?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I asked both the GOC and the Chief Constable whether they required additional resources and they told me that they did not. If at any time they come to me—I have seen the Chief Constable three times in the past 24 hours—and ask for additional resources, I know that the Government will be prepared to grant them. We need to have the best security forces that we can possibly provide and the wholehearted co-operation of all people in Northern Ireland, in the same way as I believe that I have the wholehearted co-operation of everyone in the House in doing what I can.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are later questions on security.

Home Help Service

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what advice he has given to the health and social services boards regarding economies in the cost of the home help service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): No advice has been given to the health and social services boards specifically on economies in the cost of the home help service.

Mr. Powell: Given that it is desirable that all expenditure should be carefully scrutinised, is the Minister aware of disquieting information which reaches hon. Members, particularly in the area of some boards, that a kind of rule of thumb is being applied to cut down expenditure on the home help service without regard to particular circumstances? Will he concern himself to look into the background of that impression?

Mr. Patten: I shall certainly look into the background. A joint review group of the Department and the area boards is looking at the home help service. As the right hon. Gentleman will doubtless know, we are spending 91 per cent. more on the home help service than three years ago. We are spending in all £16 million on the home help service, but I recognise that despite that increase there is still concern, and we need to look into the matter.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister appreciate that the Opposition are strongly opposed to any cuts in the home help service, which is crucial within the Health Service, and nor do we look kindly on any other attempt to cut the Health Service in the ways that it has been cut in some areas in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Patten: The home help service has been increasing during the past few years. It is not without relevance that 19·4 per thousand of the population over 65 in Northern Ireland are provided with the service, whereas in England the figure is 6·5 per thousand. There are still difficulties, but there is increased spending on the Health Service in Northern Ireland, not cuts as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what other services he proposes to allocate any estimated underspending on the Northern Ireland Assembly for the current year.

Mr. Prior: I do not at present expect Assembly expenditure for the current financial year to be significantly different from that originally estimated.

Mr. Molyneaux: Whether the expenditure savings will be great or small, and given the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), will the Secretary of State ensure that financial considerations will in no circumstances impair the operational efficiency of the security forces? Will the Government give the highest possible priority to the elimination of terrorism, which must be a prerequisite for any form of political process?

Mr. Prior: I confirm that the Government will give the utmost priority to the elimination of terrorism and provide the resources necessary to do so. I have never been asked by my colleagues to cut back on anything required for defence or law and order, and I am certain that they would not ask me to do so now.

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will indicate the likely impact of the Chancellor's statement of 17 November on the Northern Ireland economy.

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend's statement of 17 November reflected the Government's strategy of creating a sound base for sustained economic recovery which will benefit all regions of the United Kingdom. The Chancellor's statement included a planning figure for public expenditure in Northern Ireland next year of £4,020 million; in line with the planning total for 1984–85 published in the last public expenditure White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement shortly giving details of the allocation of this Northern Ireland total.

Mr. Fatchett: Given the cuts that are being imposed on the Health Service in Northern Ireland, and recognising the CBI's view that employers in Northern Ireland will continue to shed labour, does the Minister now agree with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is important that the Government should show greater determination in fighting unemployment? Does he agree also that if the number of people unemployed is reduced that may make some contribution to reducing the number of potential terrorists?

Mr. Butler: I have already agreed to the point about reducing the number of potential terrorists. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said a few moments ago, he would know that my hon. Friend repudiated the suggestion of cuts in the Health Service in Northern Ireland. The House must


wait for the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the allocation of expenditure for next year. The figure that I gave will be very near the total that will be announced. That represents an increase in spending in the Province which will be reflected in almost all Departments.

Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland is now the only area in Western Europe where the unemployment figures are higher than for those employed in manufacturing industry and that that qualifies it to be described as "an economic disaster area"? Does he agree also that the seriousness of the economic problem is now seriously interacting with the security problem? What special measures have the Government in mind to deal with that difficulty?

Mr. Butler: It is a matter of fact that the numbers out of work exceed those employed in manufacturing. I cannot say how the Northern Ireland position compares with that elsewhere. More serious from the point of view of the economy of the Province is the narrowness of the manufacturing base, which is represented by approximately 1,000 people. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the incentive package which we introduced in the spring of this year, which is having an effect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will share my satisfaction in, for instance, the success which the Industrial Development Board is having in attracting would-be investors to Northern Ireland. There are about five times the number of such investors now visiting the Province compared with last year, and some investment will flow from those visits. I can confirm that from my experience last week in North America, and we must take encouragement from that.

Mr. Budgen: Further to the suggestion of my hon. Friend for an investment bank — presumably partly funded by the taxpayer—what is the point of such a bank if it is run on commercial lines?

Mr. Butler: The plans for such a bank are being investigated by the Industrial Development Board and other financial institutions. The Province is looking for an investment bank because it is short of private sector funds for this purpose. It is short of vehicles for private sector investment. As I said earlier, it is my understanding that if an investment bank were set up it would be entirely commercial, but it would operate in parallel with the Industrial Development Board.

Mr. Soley: If these extra Government incentives in the economy are so valuable in Northern Ireland, why are they not used here?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman has always believed that money grows on trees. It is taxpayers and the more prosperous parts of the country — whether they are personal or industrial taxpayers—that are having to put down money from their pockets to help Northern Ireland. I believe—I hope that the hon. Gentleman does as well —that they are ready to do so because of the special problems. It would be nonsensical if every part of the country were helped in that way.

Northern Ireland Assembly

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with political leaders in Northern Ireland about the future of the Assembly.

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the working of the Assembly.

Mr. Prior: I have regular discussions with political leaders in Northern Ireland on a wide range of topics, including the Assembly. The Government believe that the Assembly continues to offer a framework within which progress could be made towards a lasting and acceptable political settlement. It is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland that constitutional parties should participate in it.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Secretary of State not being rather optimistic about the future of the Assembly? Is it not now time for him to come forward with a new political initiative, given that it is unlikely that the Assembly has much future?

Mr. Prior: If one is not optimistic about something in Northern Ireland, one is not suited to do anything. I believe that the Assembly provides the best way of improving democratic control within Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that those who have so far refused to take part in, or who have found some excuse to come out of, the Assembly will have second thoughts. As I said once before, it is easy enough to knock down democratic institutions; it is quite hard work to build them up.

Mr. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, despite the acts of barbarous terrorism to which he referred, people in Great Britain still expect and prefer a political to a military solution in Northern Ireland and believe that those acts demonstrate the need for political leaders to come together to work out the Province's problems?

Mr. Prior: I endorse what my hon. Friend said. I had hoped that the Assembly would be one means by which, gradually, we could not only get people to work together but bring forward fresh political leaders. One of the tragedies about the death of Mr. Edgar Graham is that he was a young man who was making his reputation in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the future of the Assembly in its present form does not depend on him, and that he has handed a veto to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the SDLP on the future of the Assembly?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. The future of the Assembly depends on all the people of Northern Ireland. It is true that both the Nationalist and Unionist communities have a veto on progress, if that is the way they wish it to be. However, I should have thought that the events of the past few days demonstrated beyond doubt the need for both sides to come together.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is the purpose of the IRA and the INLA to smash the Assembly, and therefore that it behoves those who were democratically elected to throw their weight behind it? Will he draw the attention of the House to the nine columns in Hansard yesterday, when he answered questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about the successes of the Assembly?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I am convinced that the purpose of the IRA, the INLA and other terrorist organisations is


to bring about total anarchy in Northern Ireland. We are playing into their hands if we react to that. That is why it is vital that people take part in democratic institutions, stay there and get over some of the problems.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are those on Opposition Benches who support him totally in his efforts to keep the Assembly afloat and who would much regret its demise? Does he accept that, as far as we are concerned, he should take no initiative other than to make sure that the Assembly keeps afloat?

Mr. Prior: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I do not have so much support that I do not take it from wherever I can get it.

Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State admit that few people in Northern Ireland have any faith in the Assembly? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the two main parties in the Assembly — one of which has just withdrawn—rejected the terms for devolution of power which the Government laid down before the Assembly elections took place, that being the fourth occasion in a decade on which they rejected the terms for the devolution of power which the House had laid down? That being so, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Assembly was stillborn?

Mr. Prior: That exemplifies well the problems that I have. One major party rejected the terms for one reason and the other major party rejected them for precisely the opposite reason. In phase one of the Assembly I was trying to get people at least to consider the problems of Northern Ireland and to monitor direct rule, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said. The Civil Service has had to respond to the wishes of the Assembly in a way that it has not had to do for 10 years. That is a good thing for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: As it is clear that legislative devolution is a considerable way off, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible to consider the way in which legislation affecting Northern Ireland is examined and approved by the House?

Mr. Prior: Any changes to the way in which legislation is brought to and approved by the House would create a fresh series of problems. My hon. Friend and the House should not kid themselves that there is an easy answer simply through integration.

Mr. Archer: Does the Secretary of State accept that, whatever our reservations about the Assembly, the Opposition believe that it would be a tragedy if the departure of any group from the Assembly were thought to have been brought about by an act of terrorism, as that would encourage the belief that any political intitiative could be destroyed by the bomb and the gun?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. We would be playing into the hands of the terrorists if, as a result of their actions, the Assembly failed.

Mentally III Persons

Mr. Bermingham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many long-stay patients there are in mental hospitals in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chris Patten: At 31 December 1982, 2,825 patients in Northern Ireland's psychiatric hospitals had been there for one year or more.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that there is a correlation between stress and mental illness? Bearing in mind the increasingly stressful situation in Northern Ireland, is it not time that further resources were devoted to that area of medicine to provide for those who ate suffering as a result of the troubles over there?

Mr. Patten: We have been putting more resources into that area, particularly to enable more people to go back into the community. That is why, for example, we have increased the number of statutory community hostel places, and why, over the past three years, we have increased the number of community psychiatric nurses by 50 per cent. We want to build on those foundations.

Security

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what improvements have recently been made in the security of the Province, particularly near the border.

Mr. Maginnis: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has ensured that the recent reinforcement of the security forces along the frontier with the Irish Republic is not limited to the area he has described as the Dundalk corridor.

Mr. Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with security in South Armagh, since the atrocity at Mountain Lodge Pentecostal hall.

Mr. Prior: Security force operations and the deployment of policemen and soldiers are essentially matters for the professional judgment of the security force commanders. I am, however, in regular contact with the Chief Constable and the GOC, and am satisfied that the level of security operations along the border takes full account of the situation in that area. A Deputy Chief Constable has assumed direct responsibility for border security and an additional Assistant Chief Constable has been appointed to assist him. Additional troops have been deployed in the area to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is not co-operation from the Republic all important? Has there been a lessening of the security effort from south of the border? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are now good relations between the RUC and the Garda Siochana?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. Security co-operation is essential from the point of the view of both the North and the Republic. Relations between the RUC and the Garda Siochana are good. I have no reason to believe that, despite newspaper reports to the contrary, there has been any lack of co-operative effort between the North and the South. All I can say is that I believe, as does the South, that it can always be subject to improvement.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State accept that five members of the RUC on duty in 100 sq miles close to the frontier in my constituency, after 12 o'clock at night, does not show that the security advice is as good as he asserts it is?

Mr. Prior: These matters are essentially for the Chief Constable and the security operations. Of course I shall consider any particular point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I hope that in turn he will raise the matter with the Deputy Chief Constable, who has been appointed with special responsibilities for these matters.

Mr. Nicholson: The security situation in my constituency is most serious, to say the least, with the murder of my friend and colleague, the chairman of Armagh district council, Mr. Charles Armstrong, and other murders of friends and neighbours at the Mountain Lodge pentecostal hall. Will the Secretary of State assure the House and my constituents that there will not be a further cosmetic exercise on security but that there will be a more sustained and realistic policy, designed to win rather than to contain?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman's constituency has suffered greatly. I share his feelings over the terrible ordeals from which it has suffered. I assure him that our policy is not only to contain violence. It is to beat violence, but it must be left to the GOC and the Chief Constable to determine the manner in which they conduct those operations.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that at present border security is not considered effective? A senior officer of the RUC admitted to a deputation from my party that border security could be more effective. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is about time that we stopped pussy-footing around with the IRA, took it on, and put our security forces on a war footing?

Mr. Prior: Our security forces are on an operational footing and everything that can be done will be done. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman and others to make out that we are only half-hearted or that we are not trying. They should suggest what else we can do that is within the law. It must be within the law.

Mr. McNamara: In view of the number of battalions that are now deployed in the UDR, the nature of the recruitment to that regiment of the British Army in Northern Ireland, and in view of recent incidents, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient screening of potential recruits to those battalions to prevent the occurrence of incidents such as we have read about this week?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that screening is very thorough. It takes some months. I am also satisfied that the Ulster Defence Regiment is performing a magnificent duty in Northern Ireland. It is equally important to recognise that when, as in recent days, alleged offences have been committed, it is probably only in the United Kingdom that such action would be taken as has occurred. It shows the total impartiality and integrity of all that we do to keep law and order in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mates: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether any progress has been made on his offer to the four party leaders to come and talk to him, the GOC and the Chief Constable about security matters? Does he agree that, of all the unreasonable actions that have been taken by various leaders at various times, this is possibly the most unreasonable of all, because it is at just such a meeting that the questions asked, very reasonably, by the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr.

Maginnis) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), and other elected representatives to both the Assembly and this House, can get frank and honest answers from the people whose responsibility it is?

Mr. Prior: My very sincere attempts were not successful. I had to make it clear that I found the excuses for refusal of three of the four leaders unconvincing, anomalous and incredible. However, it is no good going back over the ground at this time. We have to try to find other ways to achieve the same aim.

Mr. Soley: Will the Secretary of State initiate talks with the Dublin Government about the possibility of establishing an all-Ireland court and an all-Ireland police force, which could go a long way to deal with the understandable fears of many people on both sides of the border?

Mr. Prior: We must first make certain that our cooperation across the border is the best that can be obtained. I do not want to comment further.

Benefits (Cost)

Mr. Sean Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of social security payments in Northern Ireland in 1982.

Mr. Chris Patten: In the financial year 1982–83, the total sum paid was £924,536,085.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the Minister's complacent replies to my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), will the Minister take this opportunity to accept the simple proposition that in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the country, it is better to use such resources to create jobs rather than to pay people to be unemployed?

Mr. Patten: I am not aware of having been complacent. I do not believe that many people could reasonably argue that the main reason for Northern Ireland's serious economic problems is inadequate public expenditure.

United States of America (Extradition Agreement)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further discussions he had, on his recent visit to the United States of America, concerning the alignment of policy regarding the implementation of the extradition agreement between the two countries.

Mr. Prior: There was no need for such discussions since there is no difference of policy on extradition between this Government and the United States Administration. We have received every assistance from the United States in instituting extradition proceedings.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is not the problem really the interpretation of what constitutes a political offence in many United States courts? Does he agree that some of the decisions that have been made appear to have had more to do with the political prejudices of the courts than with an attempt to find an honest answer to the proper interpretation of the extradition laws? Is there anything further that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues can do to try to remove that exacerbation?

Mr. Prior: As I think my hon. Friend knows, legislation is currently before Congress that is intended to limit the courts' discretion to refuse extradition where persons claim that their offences are political. I think that that goes to the root of the problem, and we hope that the legislation will be successful.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Rev. William McCrea: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average number of hours overtime worked by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve in Strabane during the week prior to the recent public house bombing there.

Mr. Scott: Records of overtime working in the Royal Ulster Constabulary are maintained on a monthly basis for sub-divisions and are normally collated some four to six weeks in arrears. The overtime worked by Royal Ulster Constabulary officers in the Strabane sub-division in the period before the bombing on 4 November is not, therefore, expected to be available until mid-January. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that between June and September of this year each full-time officer based in Strabane sub-division worked, on average, 63 hours overtime per month.

Rev. William McCrea: In the light of the Minister's statement will he tell the House why the Police Authority admitted to me, while on a deputation from the Democratic Unionist party, that instructions about manpower hours were misunderstood by those in charge and that redirections had to be ordered?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that overtime is cut down on the ground of cost, and that operations suffer as a result, what he says is totally untrue.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the United States Treasury Secretary, Mr. Donald Regan.

Mr. Penhaligon: Can the Prime Minister explain what is happening at Windscale and why, despite all the inspection agencies and assurances from the industry, 25 miles of beach have been closed, radioactivite samples 1,000 times more than normal have been discovered, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food refuses to release all the information that it is alleged to have? Can the Prime Minister initiate an immediate inquiry and let the House know when this fiasco will end?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, people have already been advised to keep away from those beaches, but inquiries are under way — one by Sir Douglas Black into the incidence of leukaemia in the area, and the other by the proper authorities into any leaks from

Windscale and the effects that they may have. Both of those inquiries are already under way and there is no point in adding to them.

Mr. Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend noted the disgraceful scenes at Brent council last night by a Left-wing "Rentamob"? Is she aware of its determination to stop a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals from taking control of that council? In view of the fact that last week the Leader of the Opposition took so long to condemn violence on the picket lines at Warrington, does she think that perhaps today the Leader of the Opposition will unequivocally condemn the violence that was committed last night by members of his party in Brent?

The Prime Minister: I saw reports of the disgraceful scenes, which really amounted to mob rule by the Fascist Left. That is what happens when they take power, and hope that the Leader of the Opposition will condemn it.

Mr. Bell: Will the Prime Minister, in the course of her busy day, refer to her statement yesterday that there would be no unilateral withdrawal of the British contingent from Beirut? Is she saying that there is a veto by the United States, France and Italy over British foreign and defence policy?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's two statements are not compatible. I said that we would not have unilateral withdrawal. This morning there has been a meeting between the four Foreign Secretaries who represent the countries in the multinational force. The MNF continues its good work in the Lebanon.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Prime Minister give some time today to consider the problems facing the 9·2 million pensioners in this country? They received an increase in their pension of 3·7 per cent. last month, and many of them are anxious about how they will heat their homes this winter. Will the Prime Minister give a clear undertaking to pensioners that she will not increase gas prices this winter?

The Prime Minister: On the amount that pensioners have, if one takes our record over the whole period—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—since the last of the Labour increases, the pension is 74 per cent. higher than it was then, while the RPI is about 70 per cent. higher. So, in real terms, it is higher than at any time under the Labour Government. There have also been generous fuel additions which, again in real terms, are higher than at any time under the Labour Government. That is not a bad record.

Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tactics used by Left-wing Labour councillors in Brent to gag their opponents and ride roughshod over democracy? Is this not reminiscent of pre-war Fascist Germany?

The Prime Minister: I understand that, via a number of procedural devices, Conservative and Liberal councillors were effectively gagged in full council meetings. If that is correct, one can only totally and utterly condemn it as being contrary to every tenet of democracy.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ashley: Will the Prime Minister agree that she has been arguing in Europe for the principle that the poorest members should not pay the heaviest burden. If that is so, how about applying that principle at home where she can implement it? We have 1,068,000 people who are longterm unemployed and who are being denied long-term supplementary benefit. That means that married couples are being robbed of £11 a week — a quarter of their income. Unless the Prime Minister acts on that principle, is she aware that she can be accused of double standards?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's accusation. The unemployed receive, in the first instance, unemployment benefit from their insurance. Over and above that they receive, as the right hon. Gentleman says, supplementary benefit. The two in total amount to about £5 billion. I think that the two are reasonable under the circumstances.

Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister yet had a chance to look at this morning's figures, which, sadly, confirm the fact that the 25 per cent. annual rate of increase in business failures is continuing? Can the right hon. Lady say which policies she will change to reverse this sad trend?

The Prime Minister: Unemployment, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, appears to have peaked. The number of vacancies is not increasing as fast as we would wish. There is very considerable interest in the new enterprise allowance. As he will have seen from "Social Trends", a record number of people are self-employed. This means that there is a great deal of interest in enterprise. The success or failure of a business depends not upon what the right hon. Gentleman or I say, but upon whether the business produces goods and services which people will buy.

Mr. Kinnock: I should be very glad to have further good news. I at least agree with the Prime Minister's view on competitiveness. Does she not concur with me when I say that it is extremely sad that, in the four years in which she has been Prime Minister, competitiveness has gone down by 30 per cent. and investment has gone down by 20 per cent.? Given the recovery about which she talks, is she aware that if the present "rate of progress" were sustained it would take 160 years to get back to the level that we enjoyed in 1979? Will the Prime Minister answer my original question and say whether the 160-year wait is part of a medium or long-term strategy?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is referring to 1979 and to industrial effort, I point out that output per head and output per hour now are 11 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively above the previous cyclical peak of 1979. May I, on investment, refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in the last full day's debate that we had on this subject, when he gave full details on capital and current expenditure and pointed out that when one has a true definition of capital expenditure it is about the same now as it was during the year 1978–79.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to talk to the Law Officers to see whether they can find a way to prevent authorities such as the GLC and Camden from spending ratepayers' money on Labour party propaganda?

The Prime Minister: I think that that would probably be, as my hon. Friend indicates, a matter for the district auditors or the Law Officers. I think that we would all deplore the expenditure of ratepayers' money on party political propaganda, particularly those hard-pressed ratepayers of London, including small businesses, who want rates to go down, not up.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 8 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: While recognising that hardly anything has gone right for the Prime Minister in the past few weeks —I am sorry about that—was it not unjust to deprive the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons of his job of co-ordinating Government policy? Why does not the Prime Minister, like the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Energy, in their coded ways, recognise the fact that it is the Government's policies that are so damaging to Britain, not their co-ordination?

The Prime Minister: I note that the hon. Gentleman thinks that getting inflation down is very damaging for Britain—although our record is far better than his—and that the record of output per head is very damaging for Britain, although I think that it is very good. We have done far better on the National Health Service than the Labour Government — [Interruption.] The Labour Government actually reduced provision for the National Health Service in real terms in two of the five years —1976–77 and 1977–78—that they were in office. The fact is that the Conservative Government have been very good for Britain, as was recognised at the last general election.

Mr. Tapsell: When, later today, my right hon. Friend receives the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Donald Regan, will she discuss with him the reasons why economic policies which can broadly, but fairly, be described as at least neo-Keynesian seem to have brought such beneficial effects to the United States economy? Before our next Budget is finalised, could the principles of British economic policy be rigorously re-examined with an open mind?

The Prime Minister: In spite of what my hon. Friend said, a Budget deficit of this kind is causing high interest rates, which are extremely damaging to this and other European countries. Further, it is preventing us from getting the amount of investment that we should have in this country because much capital is withdrawing to the United States. The United States also has a fantastic balance of trade deficit in contrast to the figures for this country, where we have a £1·2 billion surplus so far this year. I would rather be in our position, which is sustainable, than in that of United States which, I believe, will cause great trouble within 12 months.

Dr. Owen: Has the Cabinet yet been able to make up its collective mind on the question of breaking the solicitor's monopoly on house conveyancing? If it has not, will the Government continue merely to talk about competition policy while creating private monopolies and maintaining professional monopolies?

The Prime Minister: An announcement will be made when the matter comes before the House shortly.

Enfield

Mr. Eggar: asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Enfield.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Eggar: My constituents will be disturbed to learn that my right hon. Friend will not be visiting them. Had she planned to visit them, is she aware that they would have expressed deep concern at the events that took place in Brent last night and that they, together with the rest of the country, will take the silence of the Leader of the Opposition at Question Time today as condoning the actions last night?

The Prime Minister: The events in Brent were a disgrace to democracy and a revelation of the true nature of the Fascist Left.

Mr. Ashton: Will the Prime Minister find time today to read an article—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard.

Mr. Ashton: Will the Prime Minister find time today to read an article in Monday's edition of The Times, which was written by Mr. David Hart, a political adviser to the Prime Minister's Office, in which he accuses National Health Service——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not related his question to Enfield. We must move on to business questions.

Mr. Ashton: I want to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ashton: I was going to mention Enfield.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was going to say. I only know what he did say. I did not hear him refer to Enfield in his question. We shall move on to business questions.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was shouted down before I even had a chance to mention Enfield and before I reached the end of my first sentence. If that had not happened I would have been in order. May I ask my question.

Mr. Speaker: I must say that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say anything about Enfield in his preliminary remarks. However, in the spirit of Christmas, I shall let him finish his question, if he relates it to Enfield.

Mr. Ashton: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on an article in Monday's edition of The Times by a Mr. David Hart, who accused National Health Service workers in Enfield and elsewhere—[Laughted]—of theft and moonlighting? Is Mr. David Hart a political adviser to the Prime Minister's Office, and is it the same Mr. David Hart who went bankrupt a few years ago for nearly £1 million, ran up debts of £1,000 in a Chelsea restaurant and in antique shops, and who is highlighted in today's edition of the Daily Mirror? What sort of advice is the right hon. Lady taking from such an adviser?

The Prime Minister: Mr. Hart is not a political adviser to me, or to No. 10. If the hon. Gentleman has any quarrel with him, I suggest that he puts it to him personally.

Sir Anthony Berry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Christmas spirit, cannot we have one more question from an hon. Member who represents Enfield?

Mr. Speaker: Christmas is some way off.

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the previous exchanges, great political capital was made out of my constituency of Brent. I was at the meeting referred to— [Interruption.] I think that you, Mr. Speaker, will acquit me of being a militant or aggressive person. I have had no chance to reply to that exchange. Is there any way in which I can put the record straight? The comments made about the incident are quite out of keeping with my construction of a complex matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry that I have been unable to call the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he tries again next Tuesday.

House Buyers Bill

Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the House Buyers Bill will come before the House next Friday. Several hon. Members will be financially involved in that Bill, in that they are solicitors. You will also recall that when several hon. Members were similarly involved in the Lloyd's Bill Mr. Speaker advised the House about how those affected should vote or conduct themselves. Will you do a similar service to the House this time?

Mr. Speaker: I fully intend to do so.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 DECEMBER — Until seven o'clock, consideration of private Members' motions.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill and of the Town and Country Planning Bill.
Motion on the eligibility for Release on Licence Order. TUESDAY 13 DECEMBER — Second Reading of the London Regional Transport Bill.
Motion on the European Community Document No. 8922/83 on the multi-annual programme for transport infrastructure.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.
The House will be asked to agree the Civil and Defence Votes on Account and the winter Supplementary Estimates.
WEDNESDAY 14 and THURSDAY 15 DECEMBER —Remaining stages of the Telecommunications Bill.
At the end on Thursday, Motions on the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation and Grant (Variation) (No. 2) and (No. 3) Schemes.
FRIDAY 16 DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 19 DECEMBER — Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that, subject to progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Thursday 22 December until Monday 16 January 1984.

Debate on 13 December:

Multi-annual transport infrastructure programme Document No. 8922/83.

Relevant report of the European Legislation Committee See HC 78-v (1983–84) para. 4.]

Mr. Kinnock: In the light of recent exchanges, may I thank the Leader of the House for at last telling us when Christmas will be? I thank him for the motion to increase the numbers on certain Select Committees. If the motion is opposed tonight, will he allow the House to debate it next week? In addition, will he give an assurance that any statement on regional policy will be made early next week? The House will want to know that there will not be a series of important statements made in the days immediately before the Christmas recess. Unfortunately, such things have occurred in the past.

Mr. Biffen: I realise that there is anxiety in all parts of the House that a statement on regional policy should be made as soon as possible. I shall bear in mind the desirability of its being made sooner rather than later. However, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to accept that several statements have to be made before the Christmas recess, and we have to try as best we can to contain them within the timetable.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware from the motion on the Order Paper today that we have tried to

resolve some of the problems that have prevented the Select Committees from being established. If objection is taken to the motion tonight, I shall provide time for a debate on the motion at the end of business on Wednesday 14 December as well as for any matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Sir P. Holland) may request. I note that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to proceed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Is it not true that the winter Supplementary Estimates do not have to be taken by next week and could be delayed? As one of them includes a Supplementary Estimate of about £430 million for the EC, should not the matter be deferred until the Select Committees can take evidence and the Estimates and report to the House?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly consider that point and see whether I can accommodate my right hon. Friend.

Mr. David Owen: Is it right that we should start the Christmas recess without debating the issue of the Supply days? Is the Leader of the House aware—and is the country aware—that the Labour party has now informed the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party that they will have only one Supply day out of 19? Can this situation possibly be allowed to continue? Will the Leader of the House undertake to have the issue debated on a free vote before Christmas?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman drew this matter to my attention on an earlier occasion. I cannot add to what I said then—that I could not undertake that time would be made available before Christmas.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: The Leader of the House may recall that, when I was Leader of the House, we experimented with giving Mr. Speaker discretion to limit to 10 minutes speeches made in the later stages of Second Reading debates. As it was well received, will he now give the House an opportunity to decide whether that should be done on a permanent basis, and whether the practice should be extended to other debates?

Mr. Biffen: I know about my right hon. Friend's experiment, but I think he will agree with me that the Procedure Committee which is in prospect would be the appropriate vehicle to use.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The Leader of the House is responsible not just for the Government Front Bench but for Back Benchers of both parties. I ask him to look at the private Members' Bills which are due for consideration tomorrow and next Friday with a view to reestablishing the previous practice when one knew quite clearly from where an objection came. At one time the Government Whips would indicate whether or not they objected. At the moment one does not know whether it is the Government who are delaying a Bill or one's colleagues.

Mr. Biffen: My recollection of history does not coincide with that of the hon. Gentleman, but that may make matters worse.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Many private Members' Bills are of greater interest to many members of the public than some measures introduced by the Government. Would my right hon. Friend therefore consider whether private Members' Bills should receive


their Second Reading not on a Friday, when most hon. Members wish to be in their constituencies, but on some other day of the week?

Mr. Biffen: The imminence of Christmas induces me to desist from ungenerous comment on the relative merits of Government and private legislation. My hon. Friend's suggestion is so significant that it should be considered by a Procedure Committee.

Mr. John Evans: A debate was held last night on a Community document about the protection of workers from noise. Very few hon. Members of any party were able to participate in the debate because of the shortness of the time available. Will the Leader of the House consider bringing this vital subject back to the Floor of the House — next week or shortly after the recess—so that all who wish to speak on it may do so?

Mr. Biffen: I would mislead the hon. Gentleman if I said that that was a significant likelihood. He and any like-minded colleagues may wish to use all the advantages presented by the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday week.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Late on Tuesday night the House discussed the report of the Procedure Committee (Finance). The Financial Secretary to the Treasury then made a detailed and courteous speech but made no promise to concede anything that the Committee had proposed. One would hardly have expected him to accept all the Committee's proposals, but I think that as judge and jury in his own cause he behaved somewhat ungenerously. We were discussing the concern of the House of Commons about spending, the control of spending and the administration in general and the hon. Gentleman should have made some promise about action on the Committee's report. In the interests of the House, what does the Leader of the House propose to do to help us?

Mr. Biffen: I attended the debate and I agree that my hon. Friend spoke with courtesy and persuasiveness. I also have to take account of the fact that the debate concluded without a Division.

Mr. Ray Powell: I refer to early-day motion 331.
[That this House expresses alarm and concern at the action of the Manpower Services Commission and the Government in reducing the number of places in the community programme for 1984; and demands an early debate and a reversal of these policies that will substantially reduce employment opportunities for the 1,142,898 who have been unemployed for more than 52 weeks and the prospects of the 3,084,416 unemployed not afforded a chance of even working under the present Manpower Services Commission scheme.]
In my constituency alone the cut of 64 jobs in one scheme will be the equivalent of closing down a factory. In addition, 800 jobs are to be lost in Mid-Glamorgan and thousands throughout the country. My concern is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that there will be time to debate the matter next week.

Mr. Biffen: I am well aware of the anxieties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. There can be few hon. Members whose constituency interests are not touched by the present state of the community programme. As an

experienced campaigner, the hon. Gentleman may like to take advantage of the opportunities that will arise in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I refer to my right hon. Friend's reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Sir K. Lewis) about the report of the Procedure Committee (Finance). Is my right hon. Friend prepared to find a proper day and time for the House to be asked to reach a decision on this matter? My right hon. Friend's attitude to it is somewhat cavalier.

Mr. Biffen: I do not have a cavalier attitude, but the House must make its judgment on this matter. The debate was held late in the evening, but it began before 10 pm. Debates on many important issues commence later than that.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary responded to the proposals of the Select Committee and a wide-ranging debate took place. I cannot see any prospect that further Government time could be devoted to debating the matter in the immediate future.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 63 which draws attention to the exploitation of a dedicated group of workers?
[That this House, noting that the National Health Service hospital pharmacists are still being expected to provide emergency cover without being paid for it, and that they are the only National Health Service profession in this position; deplores the Government's offer of additional funds which would provide a payment of £1·50 for up to 16 hours on call; and demands that the Government allocate sufficient funds to the Pharmaceutical Whitley Council so as to allow them to negotiate emergency duty payments which are commensurate with pharmacists' professional responsibilities and are no lower than those paid to other National Health Service professions.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of state for Social Services to make an early statement in the House on the matter?

Mr. Biffen: I will pass that request to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend treat the House to another display of the candour for which he is held in high regard and tell us whether the Government's attitude towards the House Buyers Bill will be one of benevolent neutrality or hostile indifference?

Mr. Biffen: In demonstration of my well-known candour I can only echo what the Prime Minister said a few moments ago.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As you have invoked the spirit of Christmas, Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to hope that the Leader of the House wall pay due regard to early-day motion 247, which highlights the plight of many people who are facing higher gas and electricity charges at Christmas. They are in the growing poverty trap being created by the Government's economic policies.
[That this House condemns the Government's intention to increase gas and electricity prices; and is digusted that millions of people including pensioners, the unemployed,


the disabled, one-parent families, widows and other groups below the poverty line will be savagely hit by the Government's inflationary method of balancing its budget which the Labour Opposition will oppose inside and outside Parliament.]
Early-day motion 319 notes that many of those people go without the supplementary benefit to which they are entitled.
[That this House notes with great concern that the total amount of supplementary benefit unclaimed by persons entitled to it rose from £355 million in 1979 to £760 million in 1981, that 1,390,000 people who were eligible for the benefit in the latter year failed to claim it at any one time, and that the average weekly amount unclaimed was £10·50 for all groups and £18·10 for those under pensionable age; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take urgent steps to ensure that all those eligible for benefit receive their full entitlement.]
Will the Leader of the House give the Government an opportunity to discard their Scrooge-like garb before Christmas and initiate a full-scale debate on poverty?

Mr. Biffen: I am not required to instruct the hon. Gentleman on how to conduct a parliamentary campaign, but if all the signatories to the motion were to ballot for the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill, no doubt the topic would be debated.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 249 on the Airbus A320 project.
[That this House congratulates British Caledonian Airways on its recent decision to buy the Airbus A320, 25 per cent. of which should be built in Great Britain thereby creating and safeguarding British jobs and keeping the United Kingdom in the vanguard of civil aviation technology; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to facilitate the participation of British firms in this collaborative project, which is of such crucial importance to the long-term future of the European civil aircraft manufacturing industry.]
The motion has 150 signatories from Members in all parts of the House. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give the project Government funding and support? The German and French Governments are already putting money into the programme.

Mr. Biffen: I am wiser to stand at this Dispatch Box to try to provide time rather than make policy. I am conscious of the importance of this project and Parliament's desire to be informed further about it. I am conscious that a similar request was made last week by the Leader of the Opposition. I shall, of course, bear in mind the importance of further parliamentary involvement in this matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. I shall allow business questions to continue for five minutes longer.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the critical situation developing for the arts throughout the country for a number of reasons, such as the damage implicit in the changes that the Government intend to

impose on metropolitan counties and the GLC, and because of the earmarked moneys for the Arts Council and the Maritime museum's misguided decision to impose entry charges, when will we have an opportunity in the foreseeable future — if not before Christmas, immediately after — to examine this whole range of extremely damaging developments for the arts?

Mr. Biffen: I note the comprehensive points made by the hon. Gentleman. I will bear that matter very much in mind, but clearly there is no likelihood of such a debate or statement being made this side of Christmas. I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the arts to the points that have just been made.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Would it be possible to have an early debate on the cost and time involved in the entry of Spain and Portugal to the EEC? They are fundamental and important issues upon which the House would no doubt like to put its views before the Government make any decision, because it seems to be the only thing that could cause an increase in own resources to be considered by Her Majesty's Government. It may well be better to put them off.

Mr. Biffen: I agree at once with my hon. Friend that the enlargement of the Community by the inclusion of Spain and Portugal is of great significance for the Community and the United Kingdom because of the changed structure of the Community that will result. I have no doubt that there will be ample opportunities for the matter to be debated during the more general approaches to foreign and Community affairs. I have no specific proposals to make, given the pressures that there are on Government time.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Can the Leader of the House say when the Government's White Paper on regional aid will be presented? When it is, will he kindly arrange an early debate on it?

Mr. Biffen: I tried to be as forthcoming as I could to the Leader of the Opposition about the timing of the White Paper. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate, but I think that I can safely say that it will not take place this side of Christmas.

Mr. Robert Atkins: In view of the important and urgent decisions facing the military aerospace industry directly affecting many constituencies, when may we expect a debate on the Royal Air Force, bearing in mind that we have had debates on the Navy and the Army? I hope that the junior service will not suffer by not having been debated before the end of this parliamentary term.

Mr. Biffen: It is unlikely that there will be a debate before Christmas. I hope that a debate similar to those on the Army and the Navy can be arranged for the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Greville Janner: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to early-day motion 49, which now has 179 Opposition signatures?
[That this House recognises the disgraceful profit made by the Government from fees for British citizenship; and calls for their immediate reduction in line with the Third Report of the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1982–83.]
The motion draws attention to the disgraceful delay in the Government's implementation of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee regarding nationality fees. Related to that, can we have a debate upon the way in which visitors to this country are treated, because many visitors from the Asian sub-continent are treated with a lack of dignity and courtesy?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. It is likely that we could meet it by reference to the private Members' motions on Monday, the third one of which could easily cover the point. The best advice that I can offer is that he uses his well-established and recognised skills on the opportunities provided by the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Bearing in mind last night's events in Brent, will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate a motion on free speech and local democracy which would give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to condemn wholeheartedly the Labour leaders in Brent who brought that council to a halt by mob rule last night?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend resists the cloying spirit of Christmas and remains combatant on these matters, in which case I tell him that he has plenty of opportunities to exercise his initiatives as a private Member to ensure that the matter remains before Parliament.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Is there likely to be a statement on the British film industry before Christmas? If there is, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance similar to the one that he gave about regional policy, that it will not be smuggled in before Christmas without the House having a chance to consider it fully?

Mr. Biffen: The most helpful thing that I can do is to refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Bearing in mind the country's interest in the film "The Day After",

will my right hon. Friend consider the facilities for showing such films and others in the House? This film pulls at all our emotions and looks at the possible post-holocaust position. I believe that it points to the need to increase efforts to achieve multilateral disarmament. The country is very interested in the film, but only a limited number of hon. Members would have been able to see it in the House today if all had turned up.

Mr. Biffen: I do not believe that I have any responsibility for organising film shows in the House. If I had, I would try to shrug them off as quickly as I could. I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I believe that there will be plenty of other people in the House who would be able to organise such a showing.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) wish to raise the point of order that I stopped him raising earlier, or has it been overtaken?

Mr. Dave Nellist: It has been overtaken, Mr. Speaker.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a short statement about the arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday 19 December.
Members should submit their subject to my office not later than 9 am on Wednesday 14 December. A list showing the subjects and the times will be published later that day. Normally the time allocated to each subject will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in a ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

National Health Service (Pharmaceutical)

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the discussion that I and the Secretary of State have been having on behalf of all the United Kingdom health Ministers with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry on the scope for savings in the NHS drugs bill and other matters of mutual concern.
Prescription medicines cost the NHS in England about £1,250 million in 1982–83. Drugs account for about 40 per cent. of the total cost of the family practitioner service and about 10 per cent. of the cost of the NHS as a whole. The pharmaceutical industry's profits from NHS sales are governed by the non-statutory pharmaceutical price regulation scheme which was introduced in its present form in 1978. In the words of the published scheme, it is a key objective that
safe and effective medicines should be available on reasonable terms to the NHS, but also that a strong, efficient and profitable pharmaceutical industry
should exist in the United Kingdom. The industry's present target profit level was set by the Labour Government in 1978. Like our predecessors, we recognise that there is a major and successful industry providing 67,000 jobs and a net balance of exports over imports of around £600 million a year.
However, the present scheme has run unaltered for over five years. A review of the PPRS and its role in relation to the industry and the NHS was announced earlier this year. After extensive discussion with the industry's representatives and having taken account of the 10th report of the Public Accounts Committee published in April, we have decided to reduce the level of profit from NHS business and the level of sales promotion allowed as an expense under the scheme.
First, under the scheme each pharmaceutical company participating in it is assigned a target rate of profit, taking account of
the circumstances of the individual company, the contribution which it makes or is likely to make to the economy, including foreign earnings, investment, employment or research
We have decided that these targets should be reduced by an average of four percentage points, which will represent a saving to the NHS in the United Kingdom of about £40 million a year. We have also decided that the discretion, which our Department allows in certain circumstances when companies exceed their target profit rates, should be tightened and related more closely to a company's circumstances. Companies will be told what their new targets are soon.
Secondly, the industry will spend about £180 million this year on sales promotion. Some, but not all, of this amount is an allowable expense under the PPRS. Such promotion is funded largely from NHS sales, and we have concluded that the allowable level should be reduced. We propose that companies should be asked to repay to the Department a sum equivalent to a sales promotion expenditure, which exceeds the level allowed under the scheme; and that the industry limit should be reduced from the present level of 10 per cent. of turnover to 9 per cent. in 1985–86. We estimate that when fully implemented

these measures should reduce actual expenditure on sales promotion by 25 per cent., but we will review this area again to see whether a further reduction can be made.
All the measures that I have announced will take effect from 1 April next year. In a full year they will produce savings on the NHS drug bill rising on present estimates from £65 million in 1984–85 to well over £100 million in later years. This compares with the industry's total profit from sales in the United Kingdom in 1983 of an estimated £200 million. The changes will mean that the price freeze on drugs — introduced in August as part of the £25 million savings agreed then—will continue, with few exceptions, through 1984–85 and beyond. Furthermore, the price freeze will be at the level established by the 2·5 per cent. cut that we settled in August.
We have also discussed with the industry the problem of parallel importing of medicines. This occurs when an importer takes advantage of exchange rates and low regulated prices of particular drugs in other countries to import or re-import those drugs into this country in competition with the identical or near-identical products already marketed here. At present, an exemption order under the Medicines Act 1968 is being used by parallel importers, in a way not envisaged when the order was made, to bring into Britain substantial quantities of medicines without a licence. Clearly, there are potential health hazards if a drug has not been properly manufactured or stored, if labels are in a foreign languge, or if there is difficulty in tracing a batch of drugs found to be faulty. We are not aware of any injury to patients so far, but we propose to guard against that possibility.
We are statutorily required to consult on these matters, and we will therefore shortly issue a consultative document on proposals which will ensure that medicines parallel imported for general dispensing must be licensed under the Medicines Act, either in the ordinary way, or in the case of medicines also licensed in the European Community, through a modified licence to cover such safety matters as storage, labelling and tracing.
There remains the question of generic substitution, which we have been considering in the context of the PPRS review, as announced earlier this year. The Greenfield committee proposed that a pharmacist should substitute an equivalent generic preparation for proprietary medicine unless the prescribing doctor had specifically said that this should not be done. The committee acknowledged tht it had not taken account of the wider implications, for example, on the pharmaceutical industry, of its recommendation. Consultation of the Greenfield report earlier this year showed professional opinion to be divided on this recommendation, which was only one of 14 recommendations.
It became clear that many general practitioners were concerned that their patients would be supplied with formulations of drugs that their doctors had not prescribed. General practitioners and pharmacists foresaw problems of divided responsibilities for the treatment of patients. The various procedures considered raise serious practical problems. We have therefore decided not to proceed with generic substitution. We do, however, intend to start a new campaign to encourage generic prescribing by doctors. As to the other recommendations of the Greenfield committee, we have already announced our acceptance of these or referred them to the appropriate educational bodies.
A number of other matters arising from the review of the PPRS must still be resolved in discussion with the industry. In particular, a study of transfer prices, which are the prices charged by a foreign-based company to its United Kingdom subsidiary, is being conducted by independent consultants, and our Department is undertaking a study of pharmaceutical wholesalers' profit margins.
In framing the proposals the Government have sought to achieve a balance between the interests of the NHS as customer and the interests of the industry. We recognise the research achievements of the industry and the contribution that it makes to the United Kingdom economy, and we want it to continue to flourish. However, there is an urgent need to contain the drugs bill for the Health Service, which we are also determined to achieve. I hope that the industry will accept this position, as we wish to continue with the price regulation scheme on a non-statutory basis.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Minister aware that the measures, far from achieving a balance, are a completely inadequate response to a public scandal of enormous proportions— I use those words advisedly. Against a background of deepening cuts in the National Health Service, leading to accelerating hospital closures, redundancies of doctors and nurses, and worsening patient care, is it not outrageous that the drug companies have been permitted by the Government to make profits at the expense of the National Health Service of more than £300 million this year—my figure, rather than the Minister's, is correct—at a rate of return on capital of 25 per cent., thus making it the most profitable industry after oil and advertising?
Is the Minister further aware that 54 of the 65 companies that supply the NHS are foreign-based, and that the Public Accounts Committee estimated that their profits from the NHS were understated through transfer prices and creative accounting—the Committee's words, not mine —by up to a further £200 million this year? Is he aware that the Public Accounts Committee report of last April stated that nine companies had made £33 million in excess profits—the Committee's phrase, not mine—from the National Health Service in two years; that three or four of the largest companies had been allowed profits of up to a 35 per cent. return on capital employed; and that the smaller companies, which do not manufacture in Britain, were allowed profits of no less than 200 per cent.?
Is the Minister further aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General, in a highly critical report issued earlier this year, complained that the DHSS had inadequate evidence to assess the industry's efficiency, and that the Department had failed in the administration of the profit control aspect of the price regulation scheme for drugs? In view of that scathing indictment by the official authorities, will the Minister tell the House how he intends to rectify those gross administrative deficiencies? Will he confirm that the new target rate of return, which he was careful not to mention, is still about 20 per cent., which is well above the maximum level recommended by the Public Accounts Committee of 17 per cent? Does he acknowledge that the £40 million that he proposes to save is less than the profit that one company might expect to make from only one successful drug?
In view of the Minister's frank acknowledgement of the excessive profits made by drug companies, will he

consider reducing the consequential higher prescription charges, which have increased seven times under the Government?
Is the Minister aware that the Daily Telegraph, which is not a Socialist magazine, recorded a survey which found that £25 million could be saved by substituting unbranded versions of the branded drugs that cost the NHS £60 million a year? Does he agree that an enormous saving could be made in this area? Does not his rejection of generic substitution owe much more to the arm-twisting of the drug companies than it does to the real concerns of general practitioners, behind which he tries to hide?
Is not the Minister's statement still a licence to print money for the drug companies, while the Government are trying to drive down the appallingly low wages of some of the lowest paid workers in the National Health Service?

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is following the practice of his predecessor the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) by reacting with hysterical and exaggerated language to an announcement which is extremely good news for the National Health Service and which represents a substantial saving on the drugs bill.
What we have negotiated in the proposals that I outlined to the House is part of the Government's policy towards the Health Service. We are seeking to improve its cost-effectiveness in order to maximise the value for money that we obtain from the increasing resources that the Government devote to it, for the benefit of the patients, who will receive better care. Independent consultants have examined transfer prices, because the Government wish to ensure that the figures that we use in our dealings with the pharmaceutical industry are accurate, and that no amount of ingenuity in accounting has obscured the position from which we are negotiating. As is usual with his practice on social security matters as well as on health matters, some of the hon. Gentleman's figures come completely off the top of his head. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman's figures are far less reliable than Treasury figures, DHSS figures or those from the industry.
In considering the actual rates of return, those for individual companies have to be a matter of commercial confidence. It is known that the overall target rate of return under the system we inherited from the Labour Government was 25 per cent. and above that a so-called grey area with the discretion of a further 10 per cent. What I have just announced reduces the overall target to 21 per cent. and the grey area to one third of whatever is the company's target. The figures the hon. Gentleman quotes — and some he disapproves of are for the more successful companies—were set under rules laid down by the Government of which he was a member. What I have announced is a significant reduction.
What I have announced represents a saving in a full year of over £100 million on the drugs bill of the National Health Service. The actual profits made by the pharmaceutical industry this year appear to us to be about £200 million. We disallow various costs for the purposes of the scheme. If account were taken of those, the profits might be up to £250 million. Nevertheless, we are making substantial savings in the drugs bill. We expect that pharmaceutical companies will react by cutting costs to some extent, thereby protecting their profits, which is good for investment and employment in this country.
Against this, the savings we are making are a substantial and significant response to genuine fears. I think that this is a fair balance between the interests of drug users, that is, the National Health Service, and the interests of those who work and earn a great deal of money for the country in the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the first part of his statement on price freezing and the reduction of profits is welcome and will be seen as a positive contribution to savings in the Health Service? Will he also accept, however, that what he has said on drug substitution is a great disappointment and regrettably will be seen as a triumph for vested interests in the medical and pharmaceutical professions over the needs of patients? Does he agree that there is no reason clinically why substitution should not take place, bearing in mind that hospital doctors already use it, and that until generic prescribing is firmly in place the real savings to the Health Service on the drugs bill cannot be fully manifested?

Mr. Clarke: I have great respect for my hon. Friend's views on these matters, but I would answer him with a rhetorical question; what is he seeking to achieve in what he advocates? If he is seeking further reductions in the drugs bill, he should bear in mind that the announcement I have made is estimated to save over £100 million per annum on the National Health Service drugs bill. The House must realise that to go beyond that at the expense of the pharmaceutical industry would jeopardise much research-based manufacture in this country.
On generic substitution, I would accept as the best estimate of what might be saved the figure given by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), that is about £25 million, but we could not achieve that and also make the other savings I have described without causing damage to the industry. If, however, the intention is to improve the prescribing practice of doctors, the best way of doing that is, as we propose, to strengthen our guidance and give further assistance to enable doctors to make their own choices about generic prescribing when they deem it suitable for their patients. Again, I respect my hon. Friend's view on this, but many doctors, though not all, were seriously concerned about a suggestion that they should prescribe one formulation of a drug which they judged suitable and then a pharmacist unknown to them who might dispense the drug anywhere throughout the country would use his judgment to substitute what he thought to be an effective alternative formulation. In hospitals doctors know their pharmacists and can have a hospital policy; I do not think it the analogy with general practitioners is altogether accurate.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Minister aware that he has adopted a cowardly approach in running away from generic substitution? He cuts a very sorry figure, giving way to vested interests. He has heard neither hysterical language from my hon. Friend nor rhetorical questions. He has heard reasoned requests to change his mind. Will he recognise that the drug industry's demand for protection is a demand for excessive profits which are still far too high? Will he please think again on this important issue?

Mr. Clarke: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to save money, then he should realise that by our announcement we are saving the maximum that can be saved. If he wishes to improve prescribing practices, we propose to campaign to do that. We will not be drawn into a vendetta against drug companies and their profits solely for what appear to be totally abstract reasons which some hon. Members feel are worth pursuing.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: I welcome the Minister's statement indicating considerable savings in expenditure on the National Health Service, but will he disregard to a fair degree the continuing reference to the percentage of profits made by pharmaceutical companies? Will he confirm that a great deal of the so-called profits are reinvested in research and development and that sometimes the development of an effective drug takes many years, so that the percentages which are being bandied about are somewhat illusory?

Mr. Clarke: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is worth bearing in mind that the percentage profit we use for the purposes of the scheme is slightly notional. It is a longstanding convention that historic costs are taken as the basis for it and that is the basis of the figures I have given. When judging the profitability of the industry as a whole, he is right to draw attention to the fact that a great deal of it is necessary to provide an incentive for research and development. Moreover, much of the profits earned by the drugs industry are profits on exports which produce a substantial benefit to the economy of the country.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that there will be widespread condemnation of what will be regarded as an inadequate response to the recommendations of the all-party Public Accounts Committee with the guidance of the Comptroller and Auditor General? That, together with the complete ignoring of the main recommendations of the Greenfield report, will be seen clearly for what it is—a complete and utter sell-out to the drug companies which will still be laughing all the way to their respective banks.

Mr. Clarke: Before I rose to make the statement I knew perfectly well that whatever I said would be greeted with anger and disappointment by the hon. Gentleman, just as I know perfectly well that there will be a lot of resistance and anger in some parts of the pharmaceutical industry about what I have proposed. That is an inevitable part of the process. The fact is that the savings to the National Health Service drugs bill which I have announced go beyond some of the savings that were recently being urged upon us by some of our critics. They do not fall far short of even the wildest figures that were urged upon me by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) when she spoke for the Opposition.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Can my hon. and learned Friend say anything about the position of pharmacists in chemists' shops as a result of his statement? Many people will be most anxious that chemists' shops which are badly needed in many areas should not be closed. Does he recognise that, while he has much support for stopping the rate of increase in the drugs bill in the Health Service, he is perhaps shooting the wrong fox because many doctors prescribe drugs over and over again for patients without even bothering to examine them? The waste of drugs in that way is severe.

Mr. Clarke: The payments we make to pharmacists are on the basis of reimbursements for the cost of the drugs that they supply to patients. Our action on parallel importing will help to meet one of the complaints of the Public Accounts Committee that we sometimes reimburse chemists for more than the amount they have paid for the drugs they have dispensed. Nevertheless, there are problems between ourselves and the pharmacists, most of which were not intended by either side of that negotiating table. I look forward to more negotiations with the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee in the new year both about our present difficulties and about a better form of contract for them for the future. This should help to guard against the closure of rural pharmacies which my hon. Friend is right to be concerned about.
As to the prescribing practices of doctors, I endorse what my hon. Friend said. It is important that we should act on the other 13 recommendations of Greenfield, as we are already doing, and give further guidance and assistance to doctors in following proper and economical prescribing practices.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to the Northern Ireland debates, I intend to allow questions on this important subject to continue until half past four.

Mr. Clement Freud: While we welcome the advertising cutback on allowable revenue, and the principle of the system, the alliance is bitterly disappointed about the Minister's failure to do anything about generic substitution, as he could have done without alienating the family practitioners, who would probably prefer some generic substitution to the cash limits being imposed. Does he accept that the pharmaceutical industry must remain independent because not one therapeutic substance has come out of the nationalised pharmaceutical industry in the Soviet Union?

Mr. Clarke: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about generic substitution, but we have reduced the target rate of return on capital by an average of four percentage points to bring it down to about 20 per cent. We have also made significant changes on promotional activity, about which there is strong feeling in the medical profession and among the general public. Given the savings that we can make from the package of measures that I have proposed, generic substitution would not have been a significant or worthwhile addition.
A number of GPs and pharmacists have raised problems about generic substitution. One is that of the responsibility to patients if anything goes wrong when neither the doctor, the pharmacist, nor the people who pay the pharmacist are clear about what drug has been dispensed to the patient, regardless of what it said on the doctor's prescription.
I endorse the hon. Gentleman's final comment. Those who attack the pharmaceutical industry simply because it is profit making ignore the fact that it is a highly successful industry, making valuable medical innovations and earning substantial profits overseas. The state-owned industries of the eastern bloc have never produced any significant innovation, and if the Labour party came back into power a state-owned industry in this country would not make progress either.

Mr. David Crouch: It is not a convention of the House that I have to declare an interest when a

Minister makes a statement, but I do so. As I think the House knows, I am a director of a pharmaceutical company. I am also involved in the Health Service, being a member of a regional health authority. I therefore have a double interest.
I was one in the pharmaceutical industry who had recommended to it that it should look again at its figures on sales promotion and profit to see whether they could be tempered in a way similar to the Minister's proposals. I take that view from within the industry. however, I warn my hon. and learned Friend not to go too far. It is possible to go just over the limit in reducing not so much promotion costs but profits, with the result that the industry will find it not worthwhile to continue production of the valuable drugs in this country. [Interruption.] Those who know nothing about the industry can make sneering, jeering remarks, but we are talking about one of the most successful industries, not in making money but in innovating and breaking new ground. My hon. and learned Friend must not go too far in this direction because, although the earnings and profits may seem high at 21 per cent., in its first 10 years a drug does not earn a penny. It takes all of that time to pass the approved list.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend was interrupted by hon. Members who have no knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry to set against his own. I agree that the companies will find the reduction in profit levels and the changes that we have announced on promotional costs significant. We have not only reduced the profit figures but are proposing to change the method by which we control the level of expenditure on sales promotions above the prescribed limit. That will produce a significant reduction in the level of sales promotion on drugs to the benefit of the best companies and the patients. We shall heed my hon. Friend's warnings, but I think that we have struck the right balance between preserving a successful industry and making sure that we use our bargaining influence as a customer to make savings for the NHS.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On the hon. and learned Gentleman's choice of exhortation and campaigning rather than action on generic prescribing, I remind him that every Minister since lain Macleod has tried the same campaign. There have been three separate issues under both Labour and Conservative Governments on special ways in which prescribers' notes and bulletins can be used. Each year, 80 per cent. of the drugs prescribed in the NHS are brand names and the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, formed of qualified dispensing chemists, reckoned that on 10 drugs alone there would be a saving of £25 million.
In his discussions on promotions, will the Minister pursue three things? First, is it necessary to have one commercial traveller for every nine GPs? Secondly, is it necessary to have 6,600,000 free journals issued every three months to promote drugs? Thirdly, will the hon. and learned Gentleman attempt to stop the racket whereby a commercial traveller pays a doctor £10 for every person he is prepared to have on a new drug, calling it clinical investigation, when it is really sales promotion?

Mr. Clarke: I realise that I follow an honourable succession of Ministers of Governments of both parties in continuing to campaign on generic substitution. When it comes to professional opinion on generic substitution, I have not claimed that it is in our favour—it is divided.


The hon. Gentleman will know that the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain had a highly contentious debate on the subject and passed a resolution which it would admit was distinctly inconclusive about what is good professional practice.
As to the number of travellers or representatives, and the amount of advertising and journals, the hon. Gentleman will find on examination that we have made significant changes in the level of sales promotion allowed and, compared with the actual level of sales promotion, we shall start imposing penalties on future levels at 25 per cent. below that. That could lead to important changes and improvements.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are tens of thousands of households in which the bathroom and bedroom cupboards are overloaded with NHS drugs that have never been used, and that this is caused by widespread over-subscribing by doctors? If he can convince the medical profession that it needs to do something about that, he will save the NHS a great deal of money.
Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that if he can stop doctors having loads of material through their posts, and callers from foreign drug companies trying to sell them all kinds of pills and what-have-you, he will also help the medical profession?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with all of my hon. Friend's points. For the reasons that I have given, I think that the measures that we have announced will have a beneficial effect on the profession. To put things in perspective, the prescribing of drugs in this country per head of population is lower than that of most Western European countries. One has to persuade the doctors and the patients that a sensible level of prescribing is required, but our doctors and patients are less inclined to look for a pill on every occasion and for every purpose than is the case in other countries of Western Europe.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that not all who may be critical of his statement are just out to get at the industry, because we recognise its strength? However, will his attempts to control the promotion of drugs and costs include stricter supervision of the amount of money spent in catering both for doctors and pharmacists who may purchase the drugs? How soon will limits be set on the importing of medicine?

Mr. Clarke: The costs of so-called hospitality and gifts are not allowed under the scheme at present and have never been accepted as an allowable expense. That kind of activity will continue to be disallowed under the new arrangements that I have announced today.
Regarding the new proposals on the importation of drugs, we hope to issue the consultation document shortly. Indeed, I hope that the technical details will go out from the Department tomorrow.

Mr. Meacher: The Minister has not answered two key questions. The Comptroller and Auditor General said that the DHSS machinery for assessing the industry's efficiency was inadequate. What new supervisory mechanisms is the Minister proposing to prevent the profit control mechanism going out of control? Secondly, why

has he rejected the Greenfield report on generic substitution when a compromise agreement had been reached informally, I understand, with the BMA whereby general practitioners who did not wish for generic substitution by a pharmacist would be able to show that on the prescription?

Mr. Clarke: On the first point, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the assessment machinery that was introduced by his Government has got absolutely out of control. The only judgment of efficiency that has to be made in the scheme is that of assessing the target rate of return set for each company. It is a difficult task to assess each company in relation to its capital investment and its research base activity in this country, its export earnings and its efficiency. But I think that the job is done effectively and well within the limitations of what is practical. What the Government have announced is a sharp reduction in the resulting cost to the National Health Service.
On generic substitution the best estimate I have of the savings likely to come from the so-called halfway house that some of the BMA found acceptable is £5 million in a full year. In fact, it did not amount to much more than a re-jigging of the present form upon which the doctor prescribed. It still gave rise to all the problems about responsibility for patients if anything went wrong, as I have already indicated. Given that we are reducing our costs substantially, and that we can proceed to encourage better generic prescribing, I see no point in going in for that kind of compromise proposal worth little money but opening up a considerable amount of professional controversy.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister has given some very long answers and as several Conservative Members and several Opposition Members want to ask questions, I wonder whether you would take, say one question or a couple of questions from Conservative and Opposition Members bearing in mind that I am not anxious to be called but other hon. Members are ahead of me in the queue? In any case, I think it is a sell-out by the Tory party to the Government to finance the Tory party and the Tory Members of Parliament who are directors to line their pockets——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry; I should like to be able to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request, butin fairness to the House I have to protect the Northern Ireland business. The House has had a good run on the statement. No doubt we shall return to the subject on other occasions.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred in your comments to protection of hon. Members. Would it not be proper of hon. Members to request that we be protected against Ministers who make their replies in a very elongated form, thereby denying the right not only of opposition Back Benchers but of Conservative Back Benchers to ask their questions? Should it not go on the record that many of us were precluded from asking questions by the Minister's long answers?

Mr. Speaker: Let us not get into a great argument about this. If the hon. Gentleman had been watching me, he would have seen that I was getting equally exasperated by the length of some questions from Back-Bench Members.

Mr. Harry Greenway: A number of us represent several hundred people who work in this industry and we ought to be representing them in this matter. When you said at twenty minutes past four, Mr. Speaker, that you would allow the questions to run until half past four, according to my count about five questions were fitted in.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be totally unfair to the House if on every occasion I allowed the questions to run to the end; it would be impossible. I have to protect the subsequent business of the House.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) asked you to give a ruling on the House Buyers Bill in respect of the eligibility of solicitors who are Members of the House and you said that you would give a ruling. Will you at the same time — and I ask this for the sake of convenience — give a ruling in respect of people intending to purchase houses who are Members of the House because they are equally affected by the Bill and, like solicitors, have a vested interest in it?

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not wish ever to question a decision of yours, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that only four Members of the House still wish to ask questions of the Minister on the statement. I suspect that all of them have constituency interests. As you said earlier that Christmas is getting near, would you give us the benefit of the doubt on this occasion?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that Christmas is not as near as all that. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I fully understand his frustration, but this might be said on any day on any statement.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement on the drugs industry has taken so long because of the lengthy replies. Are you aware that thousands of people outside the House believe that the behaviour of the drugs industry has been a major contributor to the cuts in the Health Service and that they would think the less of——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that that is a matter for me.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of Electricity in Scotland—Generation and Capacity being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration. —[Mr. Biffen.]

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wishes to raise a point of order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for defending the rights of the Northern Ireland Members to have their say. We appreciate that.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you confirm for our guidance that if the first order is debated, say, until eight or nine o'clock the remainder of the time until half past eleven will be available for debating the second order, but that another hour and a half will not be added?

Mr. Speaker: I confirm what the hon. Member has said, that the debate on the first order may go until half past eleven. If it goes until half past eleven, the second order will have an hour and a half. If the first order finishes earlier than that, the second order may go until half past eleven.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You kindly indicated to me that certain matters in the first order are substantial and justify wide debate. By inference, the remainder must be considered not to justify wide debate. One of the items that apparently do not justify wide debate is the question of control. That has caused considerable concern and debate not only in the House but in Northern Ireland. I seek your guidance as to what can be debated on the first order and at what length.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order; I wish to make a submission, Mr. Speaker. Your were good enough to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and you may have written to other hon. Members likely to take part in the debate, intimating what might or might not be regarded by the Chair as in order in the debate upon the Appropriation Order. This has been the subject of observations from the Chair at the commencement of similar debates in the past.
Might it be helpful both to the Chair and to hon. Members, since these orders are available a considerable time before the debates—I believe that this order was laid on 23 November—if art indication of the view of the Chair could be given at an earlier date? An indication is often given by hon. Members to the Government of subjects which they would hope to raise. If it was within their knowledge what would and would not be regarded as in order, it would be possible to give that indication to the Government with more accuracy and certainty. I hope, therefore, that it might become a practice, if only an informal practice, in future where the minor Appropriation Orders—I am referring not to the annual Appropriation Order, but to the other Appropriation Orders—are for debate for an indication to be given by the Chair generally of its views upon order in the compass of that Appropriation Order.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I will answer his point


of order first. He will understand that it is my wish to be as helpful as possible to Back Benchers, and therefore I readily accede to his request to send the information earlier than it was sent today. In sending it today, I was seeking to be helpful to hon. Members in drawing their attention to what would be in order and what might be out of order, so saving time in the debate; if the Chair must constantly be interrupting hon. Members while they are speaking, that wastes time.
To clarify the matter, I will read from the letter:
The scope of this order is relatively narrow and policy questions should be raised only in connection with three matters; agricultural support measures, assistance to the shipbuilding industry and the housing benefits scheme. Four of the seven Supplementary Estimates are for relatively modest sums and only the reasons for the increases sought should be raised.
Is that clear?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the announcement that you have made, and I listened to it with great care, as, indeed, I read with great care what you said in your letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). I wonder whether in future consideration might be given to the distinction implied in the use of the words "issues of policy", as issues of policy may be involved in increases sought for a particular purpose under a particular sub-head. There is, therefore, still a difficulty that hon. Members might confront in deciding whether the increase under a particular sub-head did or did not open up the whole of that service or open up no more than a particular decision of policy taken within that service by the Government.

Mr. Speaker: To save the time of the debate today, the simplest answer would be for me to give further consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is my wish to be as helpful as possible in all these matters, and I shall certainly consider what he said so as to make the situation clearer in future.

Mr. William Ross: Further to the point of order that I raised earlier, Mr. Speaker. You said in your reply to me that some of the sums concerned were modest. May I draw your attention to the fact that, although an individual sum may be modest, it may nevertheless have a considerable impact on a matter of policy?

Mr. Speaker: I used the word "relatively"; and that is a relative word.

Mr. Butler: The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. In view of some of the points that have just been made, it might be helpful if I said that I shall be taking the House through the order and will be referring to some of the smaller issues. Whether that will encourage hon. Members to comment on those points when they make their contributions remains to be seen.
The purpose of the draft order is to authorise the issue of £107 million out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland in respect of the autumn Supplementary Estimates of Northern Ireland Departments and to appropriate this sum for the purposes shown in the schedule. Hon. Members will recall that sums on account were approved on 10 March and in respect of the autumn Supplementary

Estimates of Northern Ireland that the balance of the 1983–84 main Estimates was approved by the House on 7 July; together these amounted to £2,622 million.
The present draft order will bring the total Estimates provision for the year to £2,729 million. Detailed information about the provision sought can be found in the autumn Supplementary Estimates volume, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office.
The draft order covers only seven out of the 42 Votes of Northern Ireland Departments. Major provision is sought in respect of the housing benefits scheme, which is already in operation in Great Britain, and I hasten to say that this is not new money, since assistance with housing costs was formerly provided through supplementary benefit and rent and rate rebates. There are also significant additions to existing services, notably the special aid for agriculture announced to the House earlier in the year, and assistance for Harland and Wolff Ltd., for which only a token amount had been provided in the main Estimates. I shall revert to those matters shortly.
As I have said before on these occasions, we are endeavouring to keep Northern Ireland in the most favourable position to benefit, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, from the increase in world economic activity that is expected during the remainder of 1983 and 1984. When the United Kingdom experiences economic revival, there are spin-off benefits for Northern Ireland. The steady 3 per cent. growth rate in United Kingdom GDP and the expectations for controlled or declining inflation next year augur well for Northern Ireland industry. At the moment, some reports indicate that Northern Ireland manufacturing industry is now holding up in employment terms, and generally output and other trends are reported to have improved. However, it is absolutely essential that we continue to do as much as possible to encourage industrial investment in Northern Ireland and to reinforce the effects of the economic trend. The economic initiative announced earlier this year, with its additional support measures and incentives, such as corporation tax relief grants and 100 per cent. industrial derating, is promising to be of great help in our efforts.
The combination of economic recovery, particularly in America, and the efforts of the Industrial Development Board and many others, such as the all-party and partnership missions, have brought about a greatly heightened intensity of industrial development inquiries and activity, and a measurement of that is in the number of visits being entertained in Northern Ireland at present, running at a rate five times that of last year.
In the social field, with the introduction of housing benefits, we are maintaining the common system of social benefits that applies throughout the United Kingdom. The special aid for agriculture, the assistance to Harland and Wolff and other provisions for industrial support are evidence of our willingness to take account of the special needs and circumstances of Northern Ireland, even at a time when public expenditure as a whole is under constraint. Taken together, they demonstrate yet again the Government's continuing commitment to Northern Ireland.
When I introduced the order for the main Estimates on 7 July, I reminded the House of the extent of the additional special aid to the Northern Ireland agriculture industry that would be made available in the 1983–84 financial year. I also made it clear that the necessary provision for these special measures would be taken in Supplementary


Estimates. The additional provision required is now sought in these Supplementary Estimates for Class I, Votes 1 and 2. This special aid from national funds is, of course, supplemented by special assistance from the EC.
An additional £0·8 million is sought for continued measures to develop beef cattle production. This includes about £0·5 million towards subsidies for the liming of grassland and £0·3 million for the beef development programme. This latter aid has allowed the charge for artificial insemination to be held below cost, the importance of that being that demand has been buoyant and there has been a consequential quality improvement in breeding cattle.
Further, £5·5 million is included to provide for the continuation of the milk consumer subsidy which enables a higher wholesale price to be fixed for milk going for liquid consumption, thereby ensuring that consumers in Northern Ireland do not have to pay more than consumers in Great Britain.
Approval to a total of nearly £2·5 million is sought for assistance to the intensive livestock sector; £2 million of this aid is to cover payments, linked to the level of employment, to operators of licensed pig and poultrymeat processing plants and egg packing stations, while continuation of the subsidy on transport costs of egg shipments to Great Britain accounts for about £0·4 million. A further £2·5 million is required to continue grants for the improvement of pasture under the grassland scheme. That was introduced specially last year to increase productivity in areas outside the less favoured areas.
The total additional provision sought for agriculture is partly offset by a decrease in expected compensation payments on the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication schemes resulting directly from the present favourable animal diseases position. It is worth reminding the House of the importance that is attached to the "disease-free" status of livestock in Northern Ireland. This provides a very important underpinning of the Province's ability to market its produce and requires a considerable input and continuing close vigilance by all concerned with the industry. Their success should not go unnoticed.
As for the future, I recognise that a great deal of anxiety has been raised in the agricultural community as a result of the first proposals for changes to the common agricultural policy put forward by the Commission following the Stuttgart summit. I recognise and understand that anxiety, but it is clear that we must get a satisfactory solution to the problem of the United Kingdom's budget contributions to the European Community. This includes positive steps being taken to deal with the structural surpluses in agriculture, as these have been the cause of so much heavy expenditure by the Community.
Some of the Commission's ideas have not been finally formulated, and in any case it is likely that many of its proposals will be amended considerably during the negotiations. It is just not possible at this stage to speculate on what changes might be made. However, hon. Members will be aware of the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the progress, or lack of progress, of the negotiations. I assure the House that the Government will be careful to ensure that the agriculture industry in the United Kingdom in general, and in Northern Ireland in particular, is not unfairly disadvantaged compared to that in other member states. My noble Friend, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, will

be examining all developments to assess their impact and to ensure that any special difficulties with Northern Ireland are taken into account.
I should like now to deal with the industrial support measures covered by Class II, Vote 3. At main Estimates stage a token provision only was taken under sub-head B2 in respect of Harland and Wolff. We are now taking a provision of £42·2 million for assistance to that shipyard. The yard presently employs about 5,300 workers. This sum is further evidence of the Government's recognition of that company's importance to the Northern Ireland economy. Hon. Members will note that the provision of £42·2 million is £5 million less than the total level of support required last year, and, as such, is a welcome if small improvement.
The Government recently authorised the company to take an order for four 10,000-tonne refrigerated cargo vessels for the Blue Star Line. This order was vital for the company's future. It is clear that Harland and Wolff continues to be heavily dependent on public support. The market for merchant ships is at its worst for several years and it is essential that the need for this support is reduced by every means at the yard's command. I am glad to say that, under its new chairman and chief executive strenuous and successful efforts are being made to cut costs and improve productivity. A more aggressive marketing policy has been adopted — the recently announced licensing agreement with the Japanese shipbuilders IHI is a particularly notable illustration of this—and I am glad to say that the yard has a good reputation among shipowners.
An increase of some £3·5 million at sub-head DI is sought to top up the existing provision of £37·2 million for standard capital grants to industry in Northern Ireland. A higher than anticipated level of demand is behind this increase, and there is some encouragement in the fact that industrial investment has exceeded our expectations in that area. We are also seeking an increase of £2·7 million in the budget of the Local Enterprise Development Unit, of which £300,000 relates to administrative costs, and £2·4 million to grants and loans paid to industry.
The reasons for these increased provisions lie quite simply in the dramatic increase which the past two years have seen in the success rate of the LEDU's promotion of small businesses. The figures speak for themselves. It resulted in record job promotions of 2,550 in 1982–83. For the current year the LEDU has kept up this momentum and is well on its way to exceeding its target of 3,100. The volume of interest in small business start-up and development in Northern Ireland, evident not only in the LEDU's performance but in the continuing high level of inquiries which the unit is attracting from those wishing to set up in business, sounds a real note of optimism against what is too often a gloomy picture on the jobs front in Northern Ireland.
At the LEDU's work load has increased, its board and management have been concerned to ensure that the quality of service offered to client companies should not deteriorate. During the year steps were taken to expand and improve the existing wide range of services available to small businesses, and new measures such as the technical inquiry service, the new enterprise workshop, and the design consultancy service, have been introduced.
One of the major new initiatives taken in the Province this year was the recently launched local enterprise programme, which is designed to maximise the efforts of local economic development groups.
The LEDU will co-ordinate that activity. I personally welcome this, because I believe that it is an example of self-help in local communities with local politicians and business men working together in nearly al cases for the common good of their areas.
I should like to take a brief look at the future of the LEDU. I anticipate some strengthening of the LEDU's staff and a further increase in its industrial development budget to match what I hope will be a further expansion in its activity.
I should like to mention the modest provision of £200,000 in the Estimates for the energy conservation scheme, which was announced in March 1983 as part of a package of additional measures introduced at that time. The scheme seeks to assist industry and commerce to reduce costs through the implementation of worthwhile energy conservation projects. It provides for grants of up to 30 per cent. towards the cost of approved projects, and up to 50 per cent. in relation to technical advice.
I have been encoraged by the response to the scheme to date. Since its inception on 1 June, more than 320 inquiries have been received by the Department of Economic Development, and 50 applications have already been submitted involving total project costs of £4·2 million over the next few years. It is estimated that energy saving arising from these projects will come to £1·3 million a year. The scheme is already having the desired effect of making Northern Ireland industry and commerce more competitive.
I should like to move now to the Votes of the Department of the Environment for which supplementary provision is being taken. An additional £3·8 million is required to finance increased expenditure for Class VI, Vote 3, which covers the Consolidated Fund contributions payable to local revenues.
The additional grant is needed for two reasons. First, about £1·5 million is necessary to meet the cost to district councils of increasing derating for industrial premises from 75 to 100 per cent., which was introduced as part of the incentive package to which I referred. The total benefit to industry of this derating is £7 million a year. This has been most helpful to companies' cash flow and it also represents a continuing advantage, rather than a one-off payment. It also allows us to promote Northern Ireland as a place with "no local taxes".
Secondly, £2·3 million is required to meet special circumstances arising this year in relation to the resources element of the general grant. The resources element is calculated by means of a statutory formula and population levels are a key element in the calculation. The population figures used for the original grant calculation for 1983–84 were based on preliminary estimates pending further investigation of the 1981 census figures. However, a subsequent statistical review of figures for the non-enumerated population produced significant increases in estimated population sizes in a number of council areas. In these circumstances it is considered right and proper to make additional provision for those councils whose populations — or, at least, whose population figures—have been adjusted upwards.
Turning now to Class VI, Vote 4, which covers expenditure on rating, records, registrations, surveys and administration matters, an increase of £1·4 million is sought mainly to cover expenditure on general administration. Last year a major reorganisation exercise was undertaken on the rate collection system, the central feature of which was the computerisation of rating records and collection systems. Only token provision for the necessary capital expenditure on computer equipment was made at main Estimates stage, since exact costs were not know then. The present Supplementary Estimates seek to include, inter alia, provision to cover the actual requirement of £0·8 million in the current year. Total expenditure is greater than that, but it is estimated that reorganisation and computerisation will save about £1 million a year.
Provision is being sought to meet increased expenditure in the social security field in Class X, Vote 2, noncontributory benefits, and in Class X, Vote 4, administration and miscellaneous services. The increased provision sought for non-contributory benefits is £41 million. Of this, £30·3 million, as I explained in my opening remarks, is attributable to the introduction of the housing benefits scheme in Northern Ireland from 21 November 1983. Prior to the introduction of the scheme assistance with housing costs was provided mainly through supplementary benefit and through rent and rates rebates or rent allowances provided by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive or Department of the Environment. This is therefore not new money, but we were able to provide more generous transitional protection against the inevitable small variations in individual circumstances and to introduce earlier than in Great Britain a higher needs allowance for families with dependent children.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister of State indicate where the rebate, so to speak, appears, if it appears at all, in the Estimates? He has said that the £30·3 million is not new money, but in his concluding remarks he appeared to refer to some additions to what would otherwise have been paid. Presumably, therefore, there should be a decrease under other provisions, corresponding to the greater part of the £30 million. I wonder whether he can satisfy inquisitive seekers by saying where that might be hidden.

Mr. Butler: This is not entirely a straightforward matter. I do not seek to duck answering the right hon. Gentleman's question, but, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will reply to the debate, happens to have direct responsibility for the Department concerned, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will receive a fuller and better answer from him than from me. The right hon. Gentleman's question is a perfectly fair one, and essentially there is a transfer between Departments which involves the Housing Executive. I believe that he would like to have more detail than I am able to supply from the information that is now available to me. I know that my hon. Friend will seek to do his best to satisfy what the right hon. Gentleman has described as his inquisitiveness.
The estimate of benefit expenditure under Class X, Vote 2 includes a figure of £336,000 for improved transitional protection arrangements and an increased needs allowance for children from November. This represents transitional enhancement of the Northern


Ireland scheme, the cost of which is contained within the existing total of Northern Ireland public expenditure. Some £1·6 million is due to a rise in the numbers receiving attendance allowance and the remaining £9 million falls in the supplementary benefit area and is required mainly because of an increase in the numbers of beneficiaries. Increased provision sought for administration is £1·8 million and reflects mainly what is required to meet initial and continuing costs incurred by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in the administration of housing benefits. It is now estimated that the cost of social security and housing benefits paid from moneys voted by Parliament or paid direct from the national insurance fund will amount to £1·1 billion in the current year.
I have followed the tradition of these debates in taking the House through the Estimates and indicating the Government's thinking that lies behind them. In some instances I have indicated how I see the future. My hon. Friend and I will be ready to listen to the contributions of those who are fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House will be grateful to the Minister for his careful enunciation of the Government's reasoning behind the order. I appreciate the constraints upon what we can properly debate, but the Opposition welcome the opportunity to debate issues that they believe are of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. We do not oppose the order. Indeed, our criticism is that we believe that it is inadequate to meet the problems. The somewhat self-congratulatory picture which the Minister painted at the outset of his speech was not readily recognisable to me as the Northern Ireland that I visited last week.
Northern Ireland is an area of real deprivation which fully merits its designation by the EC as an area of special priority. Unemployment stands at 21·5 per cent. The number of people in receipt of unemployment benefit in October was the highest for any October on record. In Strabane, unemployment is nearly 40 per cent. For those in work there is little more comfort. In April 1981, the latest month for which I have been able to trace figures, average weekly earnings for the whole of Britain were £140·50 for men and, sadly, £91·40 for women. The corresponding figures for Northern Ireland were £129·70 and £88·50. Last year 11 per cent. of the work force in Northern Ireland earned less than £75 a week. Yet we are speaking of an area in which retail prices are higher than those in any other part of Britain.
Fuel prices in particular represent a major burden. The Minister properly mentioned the energy conservation scheme, and it is welcome so far as it goes. But the subsidy arrangements for electricity prices, which were welcomed some time ago, have the effect only of holding prices in line with the highest prices elsewhere in Britain. Northern Ireland prices are still 8 per cent. above the national average.
For many families there will be little to celebrate this Christmas and precious little with which to celebrate it. The violence which desecrates and shames the politics of Northern Ireland must derive partly from a sense of grievance and from the despair and frustration that stem from the economic factors—[Interruption.] It seems that there is some dispute about that proposition on the Unionist Bench.
I am not suggesting that the wicked men who thrive on murder and whose plan is to escalate the troubles would change their ways if the economic problems were solved. But I believe that they are helped by support from some sections of the community, especially young people, who are not wicked, who are fundamentally decent, but who despair of seeing a solution to their problems through constitutional democratic politics. They feel that there is nothing for them in supporting law and order, and they turn in frustration to anyone who appears to offer a more dramatic solution.
Even leaving aside the legacy of blood and suffering, we are debating a total Estimate of £107 million. The cost of terrorism to the United Kingdom since 1969 has been assessed at £9 billion. That figure is disputed, but on any showing it is substantially in excess of the sums that we are debating today. If those sums had been available for investment, for the creation of jobs and to meet the urgent social needs of the Province, much of our debate would have been superfluous.
Whatever the value of political and constitutional discussions—and I believe they must go on, because if we stop discussing seeking areas of agreement, and exploring activities in which the various groups and interests may join together, however reluctantly, we destroy the hope of finding solutions within a constitutional framework — we have to remove the grievances not only because it is unjust and unjustifiable that people should suffer them, but because the despair that they generate may be the breeding ground for further violence.
It is pleasing to see in the order provision for a subvention to the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Since it was established in 1971, I understand that it has provided about 15,500 jobs. It is true that not all of them have been taken up. I understand that the total take-up of jobs provided by public subvention throughout Northern Ireland is about 60 per cent. When the Under-Secretary replies, perhaps he will tell us broadly the proportion of the take-up of jobs provided through the LEDU. But on any showing, it adds up to a substantial increase in human happiness.
But the most important factor in determining the prospects for small businesses is the economic climate. If assembly plants are not calling for components, the small firms making the components cannot prosper. When the market is falling, those companies which are too small to diversify are most at risk.
The Opposition put to the Secretary of State and to the Under-Secretary of State the argument which they put to the Government generally. That argument was spelt out in the document "The Trade Union Alternative", which was produced at the beginning of this year by the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions. The committee asked that the efforts of the LEDU and the industrial development board should be augmented by substantial injections of Government money into the public services. It argued that development should he planned over five-year periods and that the incentives and investment should encourage expansion not just where it happens to be suggested, but in those activities and areas that are likely to promote the objectives which we wish to achieve. It argued also that subsidies should be judged on their effect in creating jobs, in meeting demands that are known to exist, and in boosting the economy.
One obvious area for public investment is energy, to bring down the burden of high energy prices which industry has to bear. We are told that that would be inflationary.

Mr. Butler: We are interested to know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman would suggest to improve the position. I am sure that he is aware that at the moment about £60 million is spent on holding energy prices down to the highest level obtaining in Great Britain. Is he saying that his policy would be to reduce them further?

Mr. Archer: I am saying two things. First, a case could be made to reduce those prices further, especially in Northern Ireland, because of the specific problems in the Province. Very properly, the Minister echoed my point that energy prices are reduced to the highest level obtaining in Great Britain, which is 8 per cent. above the average.
Secondly, we make the same criticism of Government policy in Northern Ireland as we do of Government policy in the United Kingdom generally. I must not stray outside the rules of order, but it has been said that the proposal is inflationary. That is a profound misconception. It is certainly inflationary to put money into people's pockets to buy more goods when there is a limit on the goods available. But if the reason why the goods are not available is that no one has the money to buy them and if people are waiting to produce them as soon as they are required, that is not inflationary.
We have argued all that before. It has been argued in a wider context by abler advocates than me. I believe that their arguments fell on deaf ears. If I have managed to persuade Conservative Members and Ministers within the Northern Ireland Office, I would not expect them suddenly to announce a recantation. I should be happy if they pleaded the case quietly within the confines of the Government.
We are pleased for those reasons to see the proposals in Class X. They will inject some purchasing power into the pockets of people in Northern Ireland. I doubt whether a subvention of this order will make a great impact on the problem, but it would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could tell the House how much of the sum in Class X it is proposed to allocate specifically to housing benefits. If a breakdown of that figure is available, I have not been able to trace it.
The transfer of responsibility for housing benefits from the DHSS to the housing authorities has brought with it a great deal of hardship, for reasons that have been canvassed in the context of the whole of the United Kingdom. First, the scheme is more complicated than the one that it replaced. It is always difficult for benefit recipients to calculate the benefit to which they are entitled. This one would be beyond the calculating powers of almost anyone who has not possessed of a computer. Secondly, for some families, this scheme means a fall in total income. A change that is canvassed as an administrative transfer but which actually reduces the end product must be unacceptable by any standards.
The housing problems that are evident throughout the whole of the United Kingdom—not least in the area that I have the honour to represent in the west midlands—bite harder in Northern Ireland because of the history of housing there. It is general knowledge that for many years

housing in Northern Ireland was a neglected subject. In the 1970s, in Belfast alone, 30,000 houses were declared unfit for habitation. Since it was established, the Housing Executive has made commendable efforts to redeem the position, and I happily pay tribute to it. It has earned tributes from all those who have had occasion to evaluate those houses. But by 1981, there were still three times as many unfit houses in Northern Ireland proportionately as in England and Wales.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that in the last year of the Stormont Administration there were 14,000 new housing starts? We have not come near that pattern since those days.

Mr. Archer: Far be it from me to comment on where the responsibility for those figures lies. I appreciate that within Northern Ireland there are debates as to where the responsibility lies and what might have happened had a different constitutional course been taken. I am prepared to leave that matter to be debated by other hon. Members.
The Housing Executive in its annual report to March 1983 was able to record that the numbers on the waiting lists had fallen to 23,755—a far from acceptable figure. However, very properly and honestly, the Housing Executive has pointed out that that fall was due, at least in part, to a decrease in demand, and that that was a consequence of inadequate incomes. The Housing Executive stated:
There may be a greater willingness, in very adverse economic circumstances, to tolerate the discomforts of sharing and over-crowding; and there may well be an increasing wittiness to endure the low space standards and poorer amenities of older housing rather than face sharply increased rents.
It then spelt that out:
It does not seem improbable that there is a direct causal connection between the sharp decline in waiting-lists for public sector houses and the even sharper increase in public sector rents which has taken place over the same period.
It then said something even more worrying:
It has been said, and not without evidence to support it, that only those in well-paid jobs, or those on full social security benefits, can now afford the rent of a new Housing Executive dwelling.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): Another reason for the fall in the number on the waiting list is the increase in the number of people in Northern Ireland who have been able to buy their homes in the past few years. There has been a fall in the number on the waiting list of about 36 per cent. over the past three years. In the first nine months of this year there were 5,300 new starts in the private sector. It looks as if there will be record figures this year. I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to realise that that in itself has a considerable and commendable effect on the waiting list.

Mr. Archer: I should be reluctant to enter into a debate between the Northern Ireland Office and the Housing Executive. I thought that the Minister was underlining the point that the Housing Executive made. Those who can buy their own homes and those who are on full social security benefits may not face the problem but those in between have the problem that the Housing Executive is endeavouring to spell out. I should not have thought that that was a reason for congratulating those who have responsibility for these matters.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be interested to know from those who


represent constituencies in Northern Ireland that there is absolutely no discernible class or wealth distinction characterising those who purchase their own homes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that in Northern Ireland house ownership spreads through all classes and callings. The deduction that he is drawing, possibly with English conditions in mind—that those who purchase their own homes belong to superior social or income classes—is inapplicable to the Province.

Mr. Archer: Of course, I respect the experience of the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am certain, knows his constituency well. But the fact remains that many people are in publicly provided houses in Northern Ireland, and there is a substantial waiting list, to which I referred. If it were easy for them to solve their problems by buying their own houses, I find it difficult to believe that they would not have done so. It may not be a class thing, but it is certainly a financial thing.

Mr. Chris Patten: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Archer: I shall give way. I apologise that I am taking longer than I expected to make my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that is because I have given way such a lot.

Mr. Patten: This is an important point. The overwhelming success in the increase of owner-occupation in Northern Ireland is low-cost housing. When he looks at the figures, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that the effect of things such as the co-ownership schemes has been substantial in giving low-paid people the chance to own their own homes for the first time. Regardless of partisan debate about home ownership or the private sector, I think that we should commend that.

Mr. Archer: Of course I commend any attempt to solve the problem in the way that the Minister mentioned. All that I need for the argument that I am seeking to adduce is the fact that a substantial number of people in Northern Ireland are in publicly provided housing and many more wish to be in publicly provided housing. They at least have the problems to which I alluded. If there are some who, fortunately, are not confronted with those problems, we can only be pleased that that is so. But that does not destroy the argument that I am making.
I appreciate that the Housing Executive, in its report, expresses the hope that some of the burdens will be alleviated by the new rent scheme, but that entails simply a transfer of burdens among tenants. If some tenants face hardship because their incomes are insufficient to meet their rents, the burden of rectifying that should fall upon the whole community, not simply upon their fellow tenants.
For many families, the situation is made worse by two other factors. The first relates to the cuts in public services, particularly the NHS. I realise that there are constraints on how far that matter can be debated, but it was said earlier that there had been an increase in the money subvented to the NHS. Of course we appreciate that. We also appreciate the fact that the Government need to spend more money on the Health Service even to maintain standards at their present levels, not only because of inflation but because there is a higher proportion of elderly people than there used to be and more handicapped people are now surviving because of advances in medical science, new forms of

treatment can be offered, saving people's lives or totally transforming their lives by offering them activities that previously they could not enjoy. To keep pace with all that, it would have been necessary to spend an additional 1·5 per cent. per year on the Health Service. That would have been running to stay in the same place.
I understand that the Government have ordained that growth should be 0·5 per cent., plus a further 0·5 per cent. if the Health Service can make savings elsewhere in its own budget. That means that jobs have to be cut. So not only are the suffering deprived of the services that they need, but those who could provide those services are added to the lengthening dole queues. Money which they could have spent on providing employment for others is lost to the economy. So it is not a question of whether money should have been spent on providing public services or on investment to provide jobs. The same money could have achieved both purposes. Of course, that is equally true in many other areas.
One consequence was alluded to earlier today by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The home help service has had to be reduced. In one sub-office in Belfast, 550 hours a week have been cut from the payroll. Surely that is false economy. Unless members of the family are able and willing to look after elderly patients, people who might have been discharged to their own homes where, with a little help they could have managed, and been happier, will now have to be kept in hospital and occupy beds at much greater public expense.
The second factor which exacerbates the situation is the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act 1971, to which some of the benefits will be subjected. It was passed to enable debts due to public authorities to be deducted directly from state benefits or, for public employees, from wage packets. Of course people ought to pay their debts, but it seems that the scheme is being used increasingly to manage the whole budget of some low income families. It is causing great resentment.
In 1980 the Government further introduced the rent and fuel direct payment scheme. Sometimes as much as £40 per week is deducted before the recipient obtains anything in cash. We all have to live within our income, but those of us on higher incomes have a whole range of banking services at our disposal. We can raise short or long-term loans. We can find ways to tide ourselves over periods of difficulty. It is hard to envisage the problems of people who depend entirely upon the cash that is put into their hands at the end of each week. Sometimes, if they can have cash two days earlier than they have to pay it out, that can tide them over until more cash comes with pay day, so that they have a little cash in hand.
We heard recently of a ward orderly in Belfast who, after all the deductions from her pay packet, received in cash £8 per week. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether an investigation is under way into the way in which those schemes work and their impact on people's lives.
I was going to say something about agriculture, but I have no doubt that other hon. Members will speak about it. Having given way, I have occupied a great deal of the time of the House. Agriculture is the largest single industry in Northern Ireland. We welcome the subvention as far as it goes. Despite the reduction in jobs, agriculture still employs about 3·5 per cent. of the working population. In recent years it has been hit by the high cost of cereals in the EC. It is now threatened with the removal of the beef


variable premium scheme and the calf premium scheme. It is further threatened with the super-levy on milk, based on a 1981 base line, which is misleading for reasons that are well known. I mention it only to say that the Opposition would support the Government in any measure to resist those further burdens on agriculture in Northern Ireland.
Today, hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland will tell the House and the Government of their constituents' problems. They will argue for measures to make a real impact on those problems. That is what constitutional politics are about. I believe that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would wish to look for redress of their difficulties within the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law. If they can be assured that there is hope in that direction, those who offer instead the bullet and the bomb will be ignored. But if that hope is denied, there will be some, particularly among the young, who will be tempted by spurious remedies, and terrorists will be able to claim that they have roots in the community. That is one reason why it is important that the economic ills of Northern Ireland should be cured, but it is not the only reason. The message should not go out from this House that the Government propose to do something for Northern Ireland just because they regard it as a problem. They should meet those needs because it is right and proper to do so.

Mr. William Ross: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in a Northern Ireland Appropriation debate. He is a new face in this debate, so we all listened to him with interest. However, I was forced to the conclusion that he still has a lot of digging to do before he fully understands housing conditions in Ulster and the housing situation generally in Ulster. I am sure that when he comes to a fuller understanding of the housing conditions and of the people who live there he will realise exactly what has been done in recent years, what was done in distant years past, and what remains to be done.
This is always an interesting and informative debate, and I do not intend to take up too much time. However, I want to refer back to what I said on a point of order earlier this afternoon about the sums of money being made available for the dogs legislation, which passed through the House within the last year or so. It was a matter of great importance to farmers, as well as to others in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the instruments spawned by that legislation have now been laid, bringing certain parts of the legislation into force.
In the documentation that I have obtained I cannot discover what sums were made available, and for what purposes, in connection with the dogs legislation. It is a matter of considerable interest to farmers and no doubt also to councils in the rural as well as the urban areas of Northern Ireland, where there is a different dog problem. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will tell us exactly what the position is, what sums are being made available, and what progress has been made by councils in Northern Ireland in dealing with the problem. Certainly the legislation and the framework are there, but there does not seem to be much on the ground.
I want to say a word about agriculture in Northern Ireland. On 30 November of this year a long press notice was issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Whitehall place, London. The same information was contained in a written answer in the House. It concerned the decrease in the moneys available for agricultural capital grant schemes in Northern Ireland. In this order a considerable amount of money is set out for various items of agriculture. As those sums were decided in the light of the changes that were made on 30 November, I wonder whether they now need to be revised.
If grants are chopped off on 30 November, with four months of the financial year still to run, surely that chopping off must have an effect on the figures that are before us. If we are to discuss in any reasonable way the needs of agriculture and the provision that has been made for it, we surely need a statement today about the effect that the Minister of Agriculture's decision on 30 November will have on agriculture and on the sums that are being sought in this Appropriation Order.
In a recent debate I referred to the drop in farming income in Northern Ireland. On that occasion I took the precaution of getting some figures from the Library. As it happened, there had been a change from the way in which the figures had been computed over the years. It was not until later that I obtained more accurate figures. I said on that occasion that farming income in 1983 would work out at about 64 per cent. in real terms of what it had been in 1973 in the United Kingdom as a whole, and I suspect that matters are rather worse in Northern Ireland. As it happened, the figures that I used then were flattering. According to more accurate assessments that I have made since then, in 1982, on an indexed figure, the real income of farmers was only 56 per cent. of what it was in 1973.
In that period there was, of course, an enormous increase in the cash amounts that farmers handled. There were also enormous differences in costs for farmers, but at the end of the day their income was much less, with all the implications that that had for the agriculture machinery industry and everything to do with farming. As farming occupies such an important part of the Northern Ireland economy, providing itself directly and with the ancillary industries 13 or 14 per cent. of the employment, the effect is greater in Northern Ireland than it is in the United Kingdom.
I maintain that many of the problems in farming arise from our membership of the Common Market, but no matter in which way we look at it, we are forced to the conclusion that the real incomes of farmers over the years have declined drastically. In the long run, that cannot be good for Northern Ireland.
I am sure that we shall not get out of the difficulty by paying more and more money into intervention schemes, and so on. In my opinion, there should be a complete rethink. Of course we are glad to see what is before us this evening, but it is only because of the Government's lack of vision—and, for that matter, the lack of vision of the Opposition, who clearly have not thought through their own agricultural policy for the United Kingdom—that our agriculture is in the state that it is. I hope and pray that when we come back here next year, and the year after, conditions will be changed so that the real income of the agricultural community will start to increase again and get back to the levels that pertained 10 or 12 years ago.
The next subject that I want to raise on the Appropriation Order relates to the announcement by the


Minister to the Assembly during the last week or so about funding and the carryover of funds granted to Northern Ireland. Hitherto, it has always been the practice in this country to claw back at the end of the financial year the sums that remain unspent. It is now, apparently, the intention for those sums to be carried over and spent in the ensuing financial year. This will have far-reaching implications for expenditure in the United Kingdom as a whole, because it will not be long—if there is any real benefit in it, which I doubt—before every other part of the United Kingdom and every other Government Department will start to look for similar benefits. If there is to be a real carryover, what effect will it have on the Supplementary Estimates, such as those before us, that are produced in the House every year? Will they be cut back, or what will the effect be?
I wish to have a full and detailed explanation of the implications of such a decision, which on its face is so favourable to the economy of Northern Ireland. I do not take a gift horse without looking carefully into its mouth. Therefore, I wish to have the teeth of this horse laid out where we can plainly see them.

Rev. William McCrea: But one does not kick the horse in the teeth.

Mr. Ross: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is satisfied. If so, that is his affair.
The questions that I am asking are an attempt to get to the truth of this matter, and they deserve an answer. We must know the truth before we can judge whether the decision which has been taken is beneficial. I have been a Member of Parliament much longer than the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who interrupted from a sedentary position. Therefore, I make the most careful inquiries whenever a gift horse is offered to me. My experience is that whenever one takes a gift horse apart, there is a heck of a lot of tissue paper and not much else inside.
The Minister referred to the upping of the census figures. I believe that a census is held to gain an accurate count of people not only in Ulster but in the United Kingdom as a whole. The needs of the various communities can then be assessed accurately so that the House can grant the sums of money needed to assist them. When the census was held, an enumerator was murdered in a part of Londonderry which was then within my constituency. The murderer is still at large. Complaints have been made that the count, principally in that city but also in other places, was wrong and that the numbers were underestimated. It is now necessary to increase the assessment of the numbers of people resident in Londonderry and other places. The effect of an increase in the assessment, by what appear to me to be fairly arbitrary rules—if they be rules at all— is that extra money must be granted from the United Kingdom Government to those areas.
Why should the Government accept that the count was wrong in one council area—I assume that the count was fair—and not accept that it was wrong elsewhere? This is not an insignificant matter. The Government, by accepting that fact, have undermined the validity of the entire census exercise. If a council can tell the Government that its figures are higher than the census showed and the Government accept that the census was inaccurate, what is to prevent every local authority, for financial reasons,

making similar allegations and obtaining the same treatment? If the figure can be upped for one council area every other area should have equal treatment.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Appropriation order and some of the Minister's general comments on it. Allowing for the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) is making his first appearance as Opposition spokesman in a Northern Ireland Appropriation order debate and that he has just returned from a visit to Northern Ireland, I wonder where he travelled? I realise that one can travel within Great Britain and see what one wishes. I believe that some people provide American visitors with Sinn Fein Cook's tours of Belfast to show the seriousness of the position.
Other people who come to Northern Ireland and dwell amongst us for a time discover that economically and socially things are not nearly as bad as they were led to believe, and certainly not as one-sided as some people have sought to portray. I am not saying that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West portrayed a one-sided attitude. He recognises the high level of unemployment throughout the United Kingdom and especially in Northern Ireland, about which I am not satisfied. Time and again, even in areas of high unemployment, however, I have realised the difficulty of getting people to work. People are not available for jobs. That must be put on the record.
If the House is constantly regaled with arguments that social and economic theories may provide a solution to the problem of Northern Ireland, there is little likelihood of the House solving it.
If we analyse the list of those apprehended and convicted by the courts, one would be amazed to discover how small a proportion of those who were involved were unemployed. If we are using socio-economic theories to read the situation, they must be upgraded. I do not suggest that adverse social conditions are not a contributing factor to the turmoil. The example of worker in the Health Service having an £8 take-home pay reminded me of the person who demanded to know to where her deductions went. The woman had accumulated debts. When it was pointed out to her that that was why the money was taken from her at source, she said, "If that is where it is going, I will leave my job and let the Government pay the debts"
The House, above all others, should tell all citizens that the Government do not have a responsibility to pay their debts. We are saying loud and clear that people cannot believe that, just because Mr. or Mrs. X can get away with not meeting their lawful debts, so can everyone else. I have, unfortunately, discovered that to be a growing tendency among people who hitherto were numbered among the most industrious in our society. They say. "Why should we worry when the Government will bail us out?" I have constantly sought to lead such people in another direction. If we use socio-economic theories to explain the position, we are using a two-edged weapon, which could be counter-productive.
I do not have before me the figures showing the state of the economy of the Irish Republic. However, Northern Ireland, as we were told today, has the highest retail prices in the United Kingdom. It is an amazing fact that one of our booming economies is in the border shops where people come from the blossoming Irish Republic to buy goods at the high retail prices in Northern Ireland. Some


figures are selective. I do not want anybody to misunderstand me. I am not saying that our price rates are correct in Northern Ireland, but, equally, I am not so sure that we can accept the blanket statement that our retail prices are the highest in the United Kingdom. The facts show otherwise.
I should like to introduce some Ulster reality into the debate. I agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West when he spoke about the problem facing those who move out of outdated accommodation into renovated houses or into new houses in the public sector. Time and again they are caught in the poverty trap. One of my constituents had to leave a job in the Health Service because he could not afford to pay the rent for the new house that the state was providing. I urged him to be careful, and he has since regretted his decision. However, it confirms that there is pressure on some of those on low wages who immediately move into high-cost public sector housing. I want to put that on the record, because it should be recognised that there is a problem.
I shall leave it to the Minister to tell us where the millions of pounds to which my hon. Friend the Member for Down, South referred, are that do not appear in the accounts. I hope that I can be assured that this is new money and that the other money that was voted earlier to the Housing Executive can go towards a roll-on programme to upgrade some of the programmes in Belfast and elsewhere. I shall not object if that is the content of the Minister's answer.
I refer to the housing benefit scheme. Together with others, I greatly appreciated the response of the Minister and the department concerned to the representations made about publicity, and I welcome the improvement in the Government's publicity for the scheme. I also welcome the fact that when the scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland there was a softening of the blow that might be felt by some because of the tapering method. However, the reaction that I have experienced as a Member of Parliament leads me to think that the warnings given by some parts of the poverty lobby were not wrong. Some people are already finding it extremely difficult to find their way through the benefits.
I welcome the use of computers in some offices and hope that it will spread to other offices. Many people have found that they were entitled to benefits that even the well intentioned benefit officer did not know were available to them, because the system is so complicated.
An interesting fact came to light as a result of debates on that subject in Northern Ireland. There are those who want the money to be paid directly to the tenant. I understand that the money is being paid directly to those in the private sector. However, I have also heard that there are problems there. Under the new laws a person could draw benefit for six weeks without using it for the purpose for which it was given. He could be in arrears before any action was taken and so find himself in difficulties. There are people on certain levels of income who would find it very difficult to sort themselves out if they were six weeks in arrears with their rents.
Those of us who argued that Government money that was to be spent on a specific purpose might be better paid directly to the person involved might have something on our side. I am told that if people want to manage their budgets they are entitled to do so. However, if money that

is given for a specific purpose is used for something other than that, it amounts to misappropriation, if not something worse. Thus we may have to save some people from the temptation of getting themselves further into debt than they might otherwise be.
In class X there is an increase from £300 to £500 in the capital limit. I welcome that increase, but before anyone starts congratulating himself on doing a wonderful job I should point out that that £500 is often painstakingly saved by an old age pensioner towards the cost of burial. The sum is only enough to cover a fairly simple burial. Thus old people in particular are concerned about that. We have given them some safeguard, but they still do not have any leeway if an emergency should arise.
Although we are debating an Appropriation Order, I should like to think that the Minister will use his influence with his colleagues in the social security departments so that a decision is reached quickly that will help those who most need a larger burial grant. The sum of £30 has been with us for far too long.
I welcome the money that is being allocated to the attendance allowance as well as the fact that the number of beneficiaries has increased. Indeed, I also welcome the money that is being paid for mobility allowance. However, I regret that the mobility allowance is still dealt with rather mysteriously. People are turned down and then have to appeal. The appeal is granted for so long, and then it is back to the drawing board despite the fact that there has been no change in the circumstances. The person has to go through the trauma of being told that he is not entitled to it, and through the trauma of a tribunal. A caring department should have a little more heart. I could spend the evening citing case after case, involving, in particular, those who suffer illnesses that the able bodied do not experience. Because we do not suffer them, we seem unable, unfortunately, to understand the problems of those who do.
I regret that the order says nothing about home helps. I recognise that it is a vexed question, and that because of trade unionism something that was a casual service to help those with specific problems has now grown into what has been called an administrative nightmare. We now have home helps who are entitled to holidays, with the subsequent problem of infill while they are not on duty. I recognise that there are scores of other problems.
There is a subtle tendency for the Department to claw back in home help allowances the money used for attendance and mobility allowances. The Department may not have made that calculation, but that is what happens. Time and again, when we have drawn attention to the problems of those home help has been cut, the explanation has been that they get attendance and mobility allowances.
I realise that there may be some social workers whose task it is to allocate, in the first instance, the hours to which people are entitled. I recognise that those social workers are human. Just as there are some chemists who dispense drugs like dolly mixtures, so there are some social workers who hand out hours without proper supervision. But the outcry throughout the Province is too great to be explained in that way. People are suffering because the hours worked by their home helps have been reduced. I could spend a long time relating instance after instance, but I shall merely ask the Minister to take the point on board and investigate what is really happening in the Department. Down from on high—thank God it is not the on High that I look to—comes the instruction, "You must save


money." That instruction is passed on to the area level, and those at lower levels have to save money by hook or by crook and they do not seem to be concerned about whom they punish. At times the situation has become intolerable.
Some people in the social services do not realise what the guidelines are. I wonder whether the Minister's wife could clean even a few rooms in the time that the home help is allowed for her tasks. Hon. Members should study the guidelines allocating time for the tasks. They might then wonder, as I do, whether someone in the Department has been reading about Wonderman or Wonderwoman and has failed to realise that home helps are ordinary people trying to do a difficult task which has proved socially helpful to many. While we are debating the Appropriation Order, we should consider whether it would be appropriate to give that service more help.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I support the draft order providing assistance for Northern Ireland, so far as it goes.
I am conscious today that my young friend and colleague, Edgar Graham, who brilliantly chaired the Northern Ireland Assembly's committee on finance and personnel, was murdered only yesterday by terrorists. The Official Unionist party, and the people of Northern Ireland, could have benefited greatly from his skill and ability, had he been spared.
In supporting the provision in Class I of an additional £208,000 for agricultural education and research and development, I note the level of assistance for the development of beef cattle production. Our farmers are producing a first-class product for the meat plants, but the Minister should urgently examine the need in Northern Ireland for skilled boners and, indeed, for the training of additional boners for the meat industry. The work is seasonal, but I understand that there have never been enough boners to satisfy requirements at peak periods at our meat plants. The meat plant operators have advertised extensively but are forced from time to time to employ boners from outside the United Kingdom, despite high unemployment in Northern Ireland.
Additional funding should also be made available to enable more of our research veterinary officers to attend conferences and courses outside Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has already mentioned the provision for dog control. The whole agriculture industry looks forward to effective dog control through the operation of the district councils.
As the Minister has pointed out, the Local Enterprise Development Unit in Northern Ireland has been very successful in assisting job creation. Success breeds success. The LEDU has received an increasing number of inquiries from potential new business starts and from existing small businesses requiring guidance through a period of threatened closure caused by cash flow problems. Increased funding would, I hope, provide manpower to relieve pressure on staff arising from those extra applications by local people wishing to invest their redundancy money—people who have had no previous business management experience. Applications coming before the LEDU should be speedily dealt with, and there has been an improvement in that area.
The increased allocation to capital expenditure for the LEDU reflects the growth and importance of small business enterprises and the growing need for capital

assistance in that area. The Minister pointed to the co-operation between the LEDU and promotion groups at local level. That deserves further encouragement. Where staff are available, regular clinics have been set tin at local level and that has proved advantageous.
There appears to be substantial provision for Harland and Wolff, which is one of the largest employers in Northern Ireland. However, the figures could be misleading. There is no direct subsidy from which the Belfast shipyard alone benefits. Approximately 60 per cent. of the sales value of the end products of Harland and Wolff is spent on purchasing materials outside Northern Ireland, from the mainland. Recently, for example, £45 million to £48 million was spent on purchasing materials outside the gates of Harland and Wolff. Only £5 million of that was spent in Northern Ireland. Some £40 million to £43 million was spent on direct purchases from mainland manufacturers. Of all the materials used by Harland and Wolff, 95 per cent. are sourced in Great Britain. There is an indirect spin-off for other regions of the United Kingdom from the input into the Belfast shipyard of some £40 million.

Mr. Butler: I take the point that the injection of money into Harland and Wolff benefits the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it should be possible to source more of Harland and Wolff's requirement in the Province? The answer to that would be of the greatest interest to all who wish the economy of the Province—let alone that of the United Kingdom—to be developed. Should it be possible to source more requirements locally?

Mr. Beggs: I am happy at the level of sourcing taking place within Great Britain. There could be advantages, however, if more of the materials used in the Belfast shipyard were sourced in Northern Ireland. It should be possible for companies in Great Britain investing in Northern Ireland to take advantage of the opportunities that exist to supply some of that 95 per cent of the requirements of Belfast's shipyard. I hope that support will continue for Belfast's shipyard well into the future.
I regret that I was unable to detect any special provision for Enterprise Ulster, which provides valuable job creation and training for the unemployed in Northern Ireland.
With regard to Class II, Vote 3 energy conservation, I ask the Minister to consider making provision to enable quarry operators to qualify for grant aid under the energy conservation scheme. At present, I understand that it is not possible for them to obtain assistance to cover exposed large stone stocks used in the production of tarmac. I have some calculations that show that assistance would be justified and that energy savings would result. A great deal of energy is required to extract water out of the stone before processing.
I welcome the increase of 1,500 in the number of beneficiaries who qualify for attendance allowance. I regret that married women, on whom the burden of invalid care falls heavily, are still excluded from benefiting under the present conditions of the invalid care allowance scheme. I hope that the House will soon remove that discrimination against married women. Has the Minister any plans for such a change in future?
Reference has been made to the effect of the high cost of energy on domestic and industrial consumers in Northern Ireland. I hope that early consideration will be


given to the provision of extensive funding to change the dependence of electricity generation from oil to coal, thereby creating much-needed jobs for Scottish miners and helping all in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clive Soley: As usual, this has been a useful debate on the Northern Ireland economy, The one thing that we must never allow ourselves to forget —I have said this many times and I regret that I have to go on saying it—is that there is no evidence to suggest that the economy is emerging from the slump that it has been in since the Government took office. Every now and again it is put to us that a major recovery is under way, but the evidence suggests that we are just bumping along the bottom. Each time it bumps up we are told that there is a recovery and that things are better, but there is no evidence of that. I recognise, applaud and welcome the few positive signs that are available, and there are some.
Let us not underestimate what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said about the devastating effect of mass unemployment on a community as small as Northern Ireland where so many young people are without jobs. I reiterate a key point that he made. An unemployed young person who sees little prospect for his future in the economy or in politics is easy fodder for the paramilitaries, because they offer a degree of certainty and ideology for which to fight and to believe in. Paramilitary organisations, with all their uniforms, marching and grouping together, appeal easily to young people. That fact must always colour our remarks on the economy.
It is interesting to note that during Question Time today the Minister could not deal adequately with the point about measures that had been introduced in Northern Ireland to stimulate the economy. If they are relevant there, why are they not relevant here? I did not pursue the matter at Question Time because one makes short contributions then, and I am sure the Minister was glad that I did not do so. The important point is that the Government recognise that in Northern Ireland there is a need for state intervention in the economy to bring it out of the slump.
The Secretary of State has attracted around himself in Northern Ireland a group of Ministers who are widely regarded as "wet". I should be the first to endorse that interpretation. He has a small group of exiles who are prepared to use old-fashioned Tory methods to try to reflate the economy. Of course, they are doing so in the context of a Prime Minister who is dead set against any such activities. Therefore, the Secretary of State and his Ministers can only tinker with the problem
The evidence—and I must emphasise that I regret saying this—is that employers are continuing to shed labour. I believe I am right in saying that unemployment in October was the highest on record. There is no evidence to suggest that new industries are developing. I wish to make some comments about the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Goverment's policy towards it.

Mr. Butler: I do not wish to enter into a long debate on the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. I made my point at Question Time, although I did not have time to elaborate it. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the tempation for a young person without a job to become

involved in paramilitary activities. The youth training scheme is, by and large, proving extremely successful. We hope that this year again we shall attract about eight out of 10 of the qualifying group of 16-year-olds—first year school leavers—into the scheme, but that still leaves one in five who does not participate. Will the hon. Gentleman use his good offices—his right hon. Friend referred to this — to ask the Northern Ireland trades union movement to support the youth training scheme fully so that we can bring more people into it?

Mr. Soley: We would love to do that in many ways, but the Minister must surely know that the problem for the trade unions, which I understand and respect, is that although the youth training scheme has potential, it is lacking in several key areas. There is a low rate of remuneration for those taking part and there is a lack of checks on the quality of training in certain areas. I accept that things are better in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, but the fact that there are insufficient checks on health and safety also worry us.
If the Minister moves on some of those key areas, particularly. remuneration, he might find the trade unions willing to discuss this scheme with him. They cannot reasonably be asked to do so while they see the scheme as a means of undercutting existing wage rates and lowering training and safety standards. That is the problem facing trade unionists on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. The Government will think that some of those fears are misplaced, and it may be that some are overstated, but on balance they are real and must be considered sympathetically.

Mr. Butler: We may be moving away from the main subject of the debate. The factor which the hon. Gentleman describes as the "low rate of remuneration", and which I describe as the "training allowance", applies as much in Great Britain as in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain the trade unions have supported the youth training scheme, although they have expressed reservations similar to those put forward by the hon. Gentleman. In Northern Ireland the arrangements for operating the scheme are different, but there is a central organisation in which trade unions can take part and air their views and improve the scheme. That is what I wish to see. I do not wish to us the hon. Gentleman as an intermediary, but we should try to bring more young people into the scheme if we possibly can.

Mr. Soley: It would be wrong to go too far down this road now, but my right hon. and learned Friend and I hope to discuss the matter again with the trade union movement —it has already cropped up in our discussions. Some trade union groups in Great Britain do not participate, for precisely the same reasons. As is often the case in a democracy, we must take people with us and remove their fears. Hon. Members sometimes forget that a worker with a relatively low earning capacity is dependent on a weekly wage and that his fear of losing his job is much greater than that of those who, over a longer period of time, have had a higher income from a professional occupation.
However we dress it up, our attitude is affected by class. Class is sometimes dismissed as irrelevant, but it is very relevant, both politically and economically. I shall not expand the point beyond that, because quite rightly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order if I did.
The Local Enterprise Development Unit has been doing extremely good work, and I welcome the additional funding available to it. The Government have been relying for the expansion of the economy on the growth of small businesses. In 1979 the Government expounded the philosophy that by cutting income tax and public expenditure money would be put back into private pockets, promptly invested in new industries throughout the country and that the economy would grow spontaneously. I always believed that theory to be the height of nonsense, and time has proved me right. There has been no evidence of that, and instead the money has been invested overseas. The turnround in Government policy has been to defend the investment policy.
With regard to the work of the LEDU, it must be recognised—especially in Northern Ireland, although it is a general point—that the first three years are the most difficult for a new small industry. That is when it most needs flexible and innovative help. The evidence from bankruptcies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is that that is the period during which most new companies go under, whether they are involved in new or in older technology. That is a constant problem.
The additional funding of the LEDU would appear to be mainly for administrative costs. Will the Government consider expanding its work in other areas, perhaps to the investment bank which was mentioned earlier? Will the Minister ensure that companies are helped through the critical first three years? After three years one can begin to get an idea of whether a company will survive. The first three years are often poor guides — some companies survive while others do not—and it is difficult to predict the vulnerable companies.
The Minister also mentioned housing. I recognise that since the Housing Executive was set up housing in Northern Ireland has improved dramatically. That is extremely important, and I shall not say anything against it. I have no objection to the right-to-buy concept where a local authority replaces those houses if it has a waiting list of people who wish to rent homes. I should be the first to acknowledge that one matter which the Labour party failed to get across to the public during the election campaign is that if there is a right to buy one's home, and the cost of buying it is lowered because of the large subsidies being given to the Government, those who wish to rent are pressurised into buying. We know that that happens, and since rents in Northern Ireland are relatively high, the difference between renting and buying is small, and at the end of the day people realise that house purchase is an investment.
The concept would be fine if everyone wished to buy, but that is not so. Those who wish to rent should be able to do so, and they should not have to wait much longer for a transfer or for a decent house. Ideally, we should have a housing policy which provides equal opportunity to those in the public and in the private rented sectors. We do not have such a policy at present.
I am still not satisfied with housing benefits. The Secretary of State, who is in exile in Northern Ireland and is running an alternative Government in competition with the Prime Minister— perhaps one might call him the gentleman in waiting — improved the housing benefit scheme in Northern Ireland. More money is available in Northern Ireland, and in some other respects it is better

than the scheme that operates on this side of the water. but it is still not a good scheme. We all know that the housing benefit system causes problems, which we cannot ignore.
I should emphasise that there are real opportunities for giving more financial assistance to the growth areas of food processing and biotechnology. We should consider possible links, not just with the Government of the South — we must recognise that agriculture is the dominant industry in all of Ireland, and is another example of the way in which the border has distorted not only political but economic development in the island of Ireland — but with the universities. Such a link could be important for the Irish economy.
Ireland has always been on the fringe of a major economy, in the sense that it has been on the fringe of the British economy, but it is now in a worse position because the major economy on which it depended—that of Great Britain—is collapsing. In the past four years especially our gross national product has decreased. The main market is now continental Europe, and the market has grown, especially in the northern European triangle of Germany, France and the northern Benelux countries. In those circumstances, a nation such as Ireland — North and South—is at a real disadvantage and can rely only on specialised products and mechanical development, or on products that are easily transportable to a large market, or on its domestic market.
The Government have not considered that matter sufficiently. We should pay more attention to, and provide more money for, research and development in agriculture. I was worried when I saw what appears to be a cut in research and development provision in the order. However, I might be wrong about that, so it would be useful to have a breakdown of the figures. If I am right, we should be increasing it instead of decreasing it. This could be done, as I have described, by links with the universities and with the Department of Agriculture in the South. This would be a positive and innovative approach to the problems of the economy of Northern Ireland and also of Southern Ireland.
Our agriculture lobby, heaven knows, is one of the strongest lobbies there is. It always amazes me that the Government are so much against subsidies to industry when they hand out the most enormous subsidies to agriculture and then knock on the door of Europe to ask for more. There is a double standard within the Government's economic policy. When we make our application to the EC we must remember that we are doing so on behalf of the agriculture industry throughout the island of Ireland. It is extremely important and an area to which we perhaps pay too little attention in these debates. It must be expanded, not just by traditional farming methods, but in the new offspring industries.
Having made those comments, I shall gladly sit back and await the Minister's response.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): The last time we debated an Appropriation Order in the House it was in less unhappy circumstances. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) referred to the murder yesterday of Edgar Graham. I should like to join him in offering my condolences to Mr. Graham's family. I offer my condolences, too, to his political colleagues and to his many friends in and beyond the ranks of the Official Unionist party. I refer in particular


to my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) and for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), who preceded me in the Departments for which I have responsibility. I offer my condolences as well to all who placed their trust, confidence and hopes in that intelligent, thoughtful and brave young man.
As is customarily the case, this debate, whatever the constitutional arguments that we occasionally have about the order itself, has given the House a reasonably wide-ranging opportunity to discuss the problems facing us in Northern Ireland. On these occasions the debate sometimes ranges even wider than the usually generously set bounds of the order, but I shall try, in responding to the debate, to confine my remarks within the limits that you would doubtless judge appropriate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall, as usual, try to answer as many as possible of the questions raised, or at least to answer broadly similar questions. If I am not able to cover all the questions which were raised during the debate, I shall as usual write to the hon. Gentlemen concerned or ask my colleagues in the Departments covered by the Appropriation Order to do so.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) tonight made his maiden speech on Northern Ireland. As Sir Winston Churchill might have said, we welcome him to our deliberations. I do not think he will mind if we do not extend beyond that the normal courtesies due to a maiden speaker. One or two points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman displayed a view of Northern Ireland not quite as well informed as his views will doubtless be within a short time.
For example, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to retail prices being higher in Northern Ireland than the rest of the United Kingdom. Some prices are higher. A number of hon. Gentlemen have referred to fuel prices. The House will know of the steps that we have attempted to take and have taken to deal with fuel poverty, but as for retail prices as a whole I am not sure where the right hon. and learned Gentleman got his information. As I recall, it is not borne out by any of the regional studies which are done from time to time or by the major study which was done by John Simpson and one of his colleagues from Queen's university, Belfast, a couple of years ago. Northern Ireland has enough serious problems without exaggerating them or claiming that some things are problems when they are not.
Questions were raised about the economy and perhaps I may say one or two things in general before dealing with them. We all recognise that the appalling level of unemployment in Northern Ireland merits special measures, just as the Province's other severe problems of economic and social disadvantage justify a higher level of public expenditure than obtains on this side of the water. The figure which is customarily, and I think rightly, put forward for the difference is 30 to 40 per cent. per capita. When looking at those figures, I do not think that anyone could fairly argue that Northern Ireland's economic problems are the result, as I pointed out at Question Time, of inadequate public expenditure. When one considers the proportion of public expenditure taken up by capital projects as opposed to current expenditure in Northern Ireland, it is worth remembering that the proportion is about 16 per cent. as against 9 per cent. on this side of the water.
Our awareness of Northern Ireland's economic difficulties, caused by a number of factors, not least the rundown of some old industries, led to the major economic initiative announced by my right hon. Friend earlier this year. Its principal intention was to provide a stimulus to local industry and to sharpen the attractions of Northern Ireland for overseas firms. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) mentioned some of the major elements of that initiative—for example, the abolition of rates on industrial property, a new advisory service to industry, an incentive scheme to help companies attract the quality of management needed for the development of their businesses and a new grant scheme to provide a relief of corporation tax on a selective basis for new job-creating projects. These steps have been taken and were widely welcomed by local industry as helping it to survive and develop.
The Northern Ireland community recognises that it cannot rely on the Government alone. One of the more heartening developments of the year has been the growing evidence of the determination in Northern Ireland to tackle and overcome economic problems by concerted community action. I have seen that myself, for example, in much of the work that is going on to make the enterprise zones in Belfast and Londonderry a success. The Northern Ireland Partnership is another major example of this spirit. It is using the spirit of self-help to show potential overseas investors a different aspect of Northern Ireland from that which they see all too often on their television screens.
However, overseas investment will not provide a panacea for the Northern Ireland economy. It must be balanced by a sound foundation of local enterprise. The last year has again seen the remarkable growth of small businesses, assisted in many cases, of course, by the Local Enterprise Development Unit. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the hon. Member for Antrim, East referred to the Local Enterprise Development Unit which since its inception in 1971 has promoted over 16,500 jobs, including 2,550 within the last financial year. This is the highest number of jobs promoted in any year since the unit was set up. I regard this as a significant achievement which has been attained against an extremely difficult economic background. I am also pleased to say that the outlook for the current year is extremely encouraging and the number of jobs promoted is likely to exceed the record figures of last year. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West asked particularly about job promotion. The job promotion to creation ratio of both industrial development agencies in Northern Ireland is about six to four.
During the course of the last financial year the LEDU board formulated its strategy for the unit for the next three years. The strategy has recently been updated to take account of subsequent developments. The implementation of the strategic plan resulted in the introduction of new and improved measures of assistance, further enhancing the unit's scope for promoting jobs. New measures have been introduced by the unit during the course of the last financial year, including the enterprise grant scheme to cover new business and start-ups, the opening of the business centre in Belfast to offer facilities for trade promotion and the opening of the product ideas licensing library to assist those searching for product ideas. A new enterprise workshop has also been established to help individuals to develop and test new products. The overall aim of the implementation of the new strategy is to achieve


a job promotion target in excess of 3,000 in 1983–84 and beyon. LEDU will continue to keep the thrust of its strategy under review to ensure that it is appropriate and effective.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East referred to the processing of applications from clients. I know that the unit is fully alive to the need to deal with and process applications in the minimum possible time, bearing in mind the need to ensure that the risk of case failures is kept to a minimum, as public funds are involved. LEDU has been making a number of attempts to improve its efficiency, and it is fully aware of the need to deal with applications as quickly as possible. Recommendations for improved administrative arrangements were made following a review in 1980 by a firm of independent consultants. The implementation of these recommendations has in recent years resulted in LEDU being able to handle an increased number of inquiries in a much shorter time, and as part of its future strategy the unit wants to continue to improve its efficiency.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East also spoke about Harland and Wolff and, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, he did well to remind the House of the importance of Harland and Wolff not only to the regional economy of Northern Ireland but to the rest of the United Kingdom. The House knows that as a result of this order the Government will be supporting Harland and Wolff to the tune of £42·2 million in the current financial year, and that shows our concern that the company should succeed and prosper, becoming more competitive in a tight international market, under the excellent management of Mr. Parker.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East raised another question, to which I am bound to confess, as confession is good for the soul, I do not know the answer, about quarry owners and the conservation of energy scheme. I shall take this point up after the debate, and my hon. Friend the Minister will write to him about this as soon as possible.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West spoke at some length, understandably, about housing. Some of his remarks were curiously ungenerous both to my predecessor the present Under-Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because under their leadership the Government have given housing the priority that it has deserved for quite some time. We have some way to go in coping with Northern Ireland's housing problems, but in gross terms we have increased expenditure on housing in Northern Ireland since 1980–81 by over 50 per cent. and that is a considerable achievement.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the brief used by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was written for him by the Labour research department?

Mr. Patten: It is not for me to speculate about research departments, even those that are not as respectable as the one with which I used to be involved.

Mr. Archer: I have hesitated to interrupt, but I thought that I gave credit for the present position on housing. My comments were taken from the report of the Housing Executive. My brief, as it were, was taken from the Housing Executive's words.

Mr. Patten: I am sure that the chairman and board of the Housing Executive would be the first to recognise that the targets that we set in 1981 for our housing strategy, both in terms of reducing waiting lists—which have fallen by 36 per cent.—and reducing housing unfitness, have been exceeded in less than the five-year period originally set. We are ahead of target and the Housing Executive would recognise that.
My next point relates to what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and other hon. Members have said to me from time to time. We are considering with the Housing Executive how best to develop the housing strategy in Northern Ireland during the next few years, taking account of the appropriate balance. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West also made a point about this, but I shall not take exception to what he said.
The balance between new build and improvement and maintenance of the existing stock is important. I hope, following my right hon. Friend's statement about the allocation of resources within the Northern Ireland budget, to say how we shall be able to fund the reviewed housing strategy of the Housing Executive. We should be able to say something about that within the next week. The House can see that we are building — if I may use that expression, given the subject—on the foundations laid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who made a considerable contribution to public administration and property development in Northern Ireland.
I assure the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West that I am not always as tetchy as this. He referred to the Health Service and the alleged cuts that the Government have made in the past few years, but it is difficult to reconcile what he said with the figures. Manpower in the health and personal social services has increased by 4,000 between 1980 and 1983, taking the figures from 45,000 to over 49,000. As for money, since the Government came into office, total resources devoted to the health and personal social services in the Province have risen from £392 million in 1979–80 to £647 million in the current financial year, which represents an increase of about 5 per cent. in real terms over the period. Therefore, we are doing 5 per cent. better now than the Labour Government of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was such a distinguished member. I do not deny that there are considerable problems of management of Health Service resources in a decade that is not seeing the same exponential, or seemingly exponential, growth rate as was seen in the sixties and seventies. However, I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there have been no cuts in the Health Service in Northern Ireland following the Chancellor's July statement. At the same time, we have found more resources this year for the family practitioner services in Northern Ireland and more money for the dentists' and doctors' pay award in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and he is right, that the regional strategic plan is posited on the assumption of extra resources made up to 0·5 per cent. of new money and 0·5 per cent. of efficiency savings ploughed back into the system. He said that the figure of 1 per cent. had to deal with 1·5 per cent. increased costs due to demography and technological development. In fact it is not 1·5 because the demographic figure in Northern Ireland is lower than the demographic figure in Great


Britain for all sorts of reasons to do with the age of the population. The demographic figure in Northern Ireland is 0·7 rather than slightly over 0·9. Adding the demography and technological factors together, one arrives at a figure of 1·2 per cent. and we are—at least, we were—talking about 1 per cent. in new resources.
I notice, however, that in Great Britain the Secretary of State for Social Services has announced that he will be able to take account of the whole demographic factor over the next year. I very much hope that, when we are in a position to make announcements about Health Service provision in Northern Ireland, we too will be able to go as far as the Secretary of State for Social Services has gone. To go any further on those lines would presume on the statement that my right hon. Friend will be making shortly.
The right hon. Member for Down, South referring to housing benefit, asked where the enhancements of the housing benefit scheme in Northern Ireland could be found in the Appropriation Order. The answer, I am pleased to tell him, is in Class X, Vote 2, Sub-head (g)(i). The Supplementary Estimate includes £300,000 to finance the enhancements we have been able to provide. This money has been made available from shortfall in other programmes. In all, the enhancements we are proposing will cost, as I recall, £500,000 over a couple of years, but in this Appropriation Order we are talking of only £300,000.
A number of other references were made to housing benefit. Perhaps the House will allow me to make one or two remarks on this important subject. I need not remind the House of the reasons for reforming the schemes that provide assistance with housing costs for people on low incomes. We have been over these arguments on a number of occasions. The House had the opportunity of a full debate late one night last July on the housing benefit order. As I said during the debate on the order, I am grateful for the suggestions and recommendations for improving the Northern Ireland schemes that were put forward by the Assembly and by others. These resulted in some significant enhancements, in particular more generous transitional protection against paper losses and an extra £1 in the child's needs allowance from this November.
On publicity—this is a point that the hon. Member for Belfast, South made on a number of occasions when the House was discussing housing benefit and has properly made since—all three bodies involved in implementing the reform schemes undertook comprehensive steps to publicise the new arrangements. Individual notifications were sent to existing beneficiaries explaining how they would be affected by the reform. There was a campaign throughout the Province and advertisements on local commercial radio and television in the six weeks preceding 21 November when the scheme came into operation.
In addition, officials explained the new scheme to councillors. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the work done by officials on the scheme. Officials also explained the scheme to voluntary bodies and members of the public in a series of 38 seminars throughout the Province. There was an extensive distribution of new leaflets on the reform scheme and a housing benefits guide. Finally, during the week commencing 21 November the Housing Executive ran a week-long promotional campaign at its Belfast housing centre.
I am glad to say that, thanks in part to the slightly later introduction of the reform scheme in Northern Ireland and also to the careful planning for its implementation, the new system has been operating successfully since 21 November without any major difficulties. No doubt there will be some teething troubles in the weeks ahead, but I have every confidence that they will be dealt with speedily and effectively.
The main problem identified so far is the failure of claimants to return properly completed rent or claims forms with a consequent delay in determining entitlement in a few cases. Most of these little difficulties should be sorted out very soon.
I am very much aware of the concern that has been expressed both inside and outside the House about the proposals to introduce certain changes in housing benefits that would have the effect of reducing the amounts payable. The implications for Northern Ireland of the proposed changes are still being considered and a statement on the outcome will be made as soon as possible. I cannot at this stage anticipate what that will be, but I assure hon. Members that all the relevant factors will be taken into account in reaching a decision. One of the most relevant factors is the fact that Northern Ireland has come six months later than Great Britain to the scheme.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East raised a number of issues. On the question of the net real income of farmers, he said that those incomes had fallen very sharply since 1973. The Government are aware of the importance of agriculture in the Province. The special aids we are presenting to the House are designed to meet precisely that point. I am bound to say that in selecting 1973 as his comparator the hon. Member selects a year that suits his argument because in 1973 farmers did well in income terms. It is not unusual in adducing arguments such as that to choose periods that most suit the propositions that one wishes to put forward. From time to time I have even done it myself.

Mr. William Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman, then, tell me a year since 1973 in which the real income of farmers shows an increase? Will he also accept that I chose 1973 because that is the year when the United Kingdom went fully into the Common Market?

Mr. Patten: I should like to be able to oblige the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I shall have to refer the question to my noble Friend, who I am sure will wish to respond to the hon. Gentleman as rapidly as possible.
When the hon. Member refers to capital grants and the effect in Northern Ireland of changes that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture announced on 30 November, I find it difficult, speaking as a layman in these matters, given that date, to see how it would have been possible to deal with it appropriately in this debate since the order the House is discussing was laid on 23 November. However, I shall draw the point to the attention of my noble Friend.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about dogs. He was interested in the amount of money that had been made available to district councils to deal with dogs. I have to tell him that no money has yet been provided to councils. However, we are making some progress and some councils have started the process of appointing dog wardens.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to end-of-year flexibility. In addition, he gave us the advantage of his


views on gift horses. There are quite a lot of these gift horses about because end-of-year flexibility applies already to all Departments throughout the United Kingdom. It applies to up to 5 per cent. of cash-limited capital expenditure. The carry forward from 1983–84 to 1984–85 will not be known until we know the 1983–84 outturn. But, whatever the amount, it will be reflected in the autumn Supplementary Estimates this time next year. The scheme will of course add to my right hon. Friend's flexibility in managing public expenditure.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to the death grant, mobility allowance and home helps. I appreciate his concern about the present level of death grant, a concern that he has expressed on other occasions. My right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for social security in Great Britain have been giving the matter close and earnest attention, and I shall bring his views to their notice.
There is no connection between expenditure on home helps and expenditure on mobility allowance or other benefits; they come under separate programmes and a saving on one cannot be used to finance an increase in another. Reductions in home help hours arise not because of a reduction in the money available for the home help service — it has been increasing in real terms — but because some districts have found that their spending is exceeding the budget that is available, and, like the rest of us, they must live within their budgets.
Overall, however, as I said today at Question Time, there has been a steady increase in home help provision. There was an increase of 91 per cent. in expenditure on the service between 1978–79 and 1982–83. The number of home helps expressed in whole time equivalent terms has increased modestly, from 3,167 in September 1980 to 3,453 in September 1983.
We have set up a joint review team between the Department and boards to see how we can make the best use of the home help provision that is available. I am keen that that team should report as rapidly as possible. I appreciate the concern of a number of hon. Members about the subject and I assure them that I am aware of the substantial increase in the number of clients for the service. I am equally aware of the increase in the number of home helps, the increase in the number of hours worked per week, the increase in the amount of funds expended on the service and the number of home helps per 1,000 of the population over 65. That figure is 19·4 per 1,000 in Northern Ireland, which is about two and a half times the English figure.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister accept from me that, although in cash terms there may be no connection, people writing to hon. Members on the subject draw a connection and point out that people are in receipt of other benefits?

Mr. Patten: I will look into any cases that the hon. Gentleman brings to my attention. What has sometimes confused the argument is the assumption that going beyond one's budget, even when it is an increased budget, and then being told that one should not do so is a savage

Government cut. It is not that at all; it is the difficult but important job of trying to manage Health Service resources as competently as possible.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When the Minister considers the results of the review, will he bear in mind the special factor that where there has been a home help allocation to a household, even a household into which sums in respect of attendance allowance are being paid, that household settles into not just a routine but a degree of dependency which can be brutally interfered with if there is a sharp reduction in the hours of home help?

Mr. Patten: I understand that, and it is a point which the review team will have to consider. A difficulty that we face is whether the resources should be spread as widely as possible, in which case they are spread rather thinly, or concentrated on cases of great need. But moving rapidly from a position in which one of those is being done to a position in which the other is done, whichever way round it is done, undoubtedly creates the sort of personal problems to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
I noted what the hon. Member for Antrim, East said about skilled boners. I shall have to draw the attention of my noble Friend to his remarks, as I shall with some of the other points to which I have referred.

Mr. Butler: That is for me.

Mr. Patten: I am corrected by my hon. Friend the Minister of State; it is a point for him and I am delighted that he will be dealing with it as rapidly as his intervention in my remarks suggests. If something can be done to increase the speed at which skilled men can be trained, that would obviously make a significant contribution to the meat processing industry. The House will be interested to know that this year Northern Ireland will export to the European Community and further abroad 45,000 tonnes of beef out of a United Kingdom total of 180,000 tonnes.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East also referred to married women still being excluded from benefit under the invalid care allowance scheme. I understand his concern, but he will appreciate that many improvements could be made to social security schemes, some of which would be extremely expensive but none of which lies within my gift. I would hazard a guess that the change that he suggests would come into the expensive category, desirable though it may be. Nevertheless, I welcome the views of the hon. Gentleman and others on such matters and will bear them in mind when improvements are being considered at national level.
I have answered most, if not all, of the questions that were raised in the debate. Those that I have not answered will be dealt with, as always, in correspondence later. I hope that I have said enough to commend the order to the House and that we can proceed on this occasion—unlike my first outing at the Dispatch Box—without dividing.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.
I invite the House, at a sombre moment, to agree to the renewal of the provisions of the Emergency Provisions Act. I believe that the House would wish me to say something about the current security situation in Northern Ireland, as that will inevitably colour our debate and the judgment that we reach on the order.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State expressed to the House yesterday the Government's horror at the murder of Edgar Graham, and I was able to voice my feelings during Question Time this afternoon. His death, coming so soon after the murders at Darkley, brings home to us all the needless suffering and waste that the terrorists inflict in Northern Ireland. It underlines, too, the callous hyperoisy of those who at one and the same time seek to take part in the democratic process and yet support the use of violence in the way that they do.
I should like to make a personal comment on this matter. When I was recently in the United States, I found myself unknowingly having to take part not in a debate but in a meeting at Harvard at which Mr. Morrison was present. Just as I started, Mr. Morrison said that I had no right to speak for Northern Ireland and that only he had a right to do so because he was an elected representative and I was not. I made it perfectly plain to Mr. Morrison, as I do to all members of Provisional Sinn Fein, that if they expect to take part in democratic institutions they must use the ballot box and the power of persuasion to convince people of their cause. What they cannot and must not do is use the excuse of the ballot box and at the same time commit themselves to the use of violence and the Armalite rifle.
I wish to get that point home firmly to those people. When they say that they represent their constituents and seek to deal with their constituents' problems they are, in fact, condemning their constituents to lives of destruction, fear and poverty. It is the very policies that they pursue that cause this poverty and fear, yet they go around trying to say that they are helping their constituents. This is complete hypcroisy and should be shown up and seen for what it is. They must choose whether they are committed to the gun or to the ballot box; they cannot have it both ways.
In the past few weeks there have been a number of extremely serious incidents in Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening so early in his speech. To assist Government Departments and the right hon. Gentleman's junior Ministers—I am putting this in a constructive way—in drawing up the dividing line, the right hon. Gentleman has put the challenge that Sinn Fein must choose between the ballot box and the gun. Would it be possible to draw the line in such a way that Ministers and agents of the Government do not deal with Sinn Fein? I do not put that as a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman

tonight, but is he prepared to think about it and perhaps come to a decision and convey it to the House on a future occasion?

Mr. Prior: Yes. It is a perfectly fair point for the right hon. Gentleman to make. I am thinking about it. I shall think about it very seriously indeed. I have always tried to bend over backwards to help those who are moving towards democracy, but, because of what we have experienced over the past few weeks, I think that the time has come to give this matter much deeper and further consideration, and that I intend to do.
I return to the extremely serious incidents of the past few weeks. In addition to the deaths at Darkley and the assassination of Edgar Graham, there have been other killings, by terrorists from both sides of the community. There is undoubtedly and understandably a high degree of tension in the Province. A sense of insecurity has been engendered in the border area, where a number of recent attacks have been carried out, as well as in other parts of Northern Ireland.
I want to leave the House in no doubt that the security forces are acting with firmness, determination, and the utmost professionalism to meet this situation. Our security policy is clear and resolute and I want it to be understood by all. It is to do everything that we can to put an end to terrorism: not to contain it, not to say that there is an acceptable level of violence, but to defeat terrorism and put an end to it. I make only one proviso—it is one which I must make to the House and one in which I believe passionately. We have to do it by means that are within the law. I must make that absolutely plain. I know of the temptations and of the concern that there is at times that perhaps the law fetters people from doing what they otherwise would do. I understand that, particularly at this time, but we must not fall into the trap of acting in any way which at any time would be against the law and the rule of law as we accept it in this House, and which we are proud to uphold in the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am sorry to intervene, but I think that this is important. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the aims of paramilitary groups is to force the democratic state to behave in a way that is outside the law and so plays into their hands?

Mr. Prior: Of course, and I have absolutely no doubt that that is one of their main aims. Were we to fall in any way from the high standards that we have always set ourselves, we should certainly be giving them the greatest stick and achievement that they could have. I believe that our policy commands the support of the whole House and should command—I think that it does—the support of all the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has enunciated is extremely important and is worth reiterating? The implication is surely that henceforth and unequivocally the defeat of the Irish Republican Army and the Irish National Liberation Army is the top priority of Her Majesty's Government. That needs to be said and that objective must be maintained until it is secured.

Mr. Prior: It has always been the top priority of the British Government, but I thought it absolutely essential that tonight, perhaps of all nights, I should spell it out in this particular form.
It is for the security forces to implement this policy. It is their job to take the necessary action to meet the present threat, and as the threat changes so does the deployment of the security forces. As hon. Members will know, it is not a simple matter. It does not admit of a simple easy answer. As the House may know, the GOC and Chief Constable are today again assessing, as they regularly do, the deployment throughout the Province of their forces, to ensure not just that they react but that they continue to act on the best available information about the threat which the peaceful community in Northern Ireland now faces, as it has faced in different ways for too many years.
I saw the Chief Constable and the GOC last night and both assured me that, for the present, they had all the resources they required to take the action which they believe necessary. They know very well that if they require more they need not hesitate to come and ask me for it. I am certainly that they will.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I fail to understand how, on the one hand, the police go to a minister of a congregation and tell him that they can no longer keep the high profile that they have had on his place of worship in the previous two weeks because they lack the manpower, and, on the other, the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House that the police authorities are saying that they have the manpower and have everything that they require.

Mr. Prior: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Chief Constable has not asked me for additional manpower. One must accept that in the circumstances in Northern Ireland —and this is perfectly understandable—it is not possible to guard everything the whole time. We cannot do that. Therefore, we must deploy our resources in the best possible way.
If the Chief Constable feels that he cannot do what he needs to do, he will come to me and the Police Authority to ask for additional resources. It is only in the past week or two that the regular police have come up to the new establishment. There are still a number of full-time reservists to be recruited to bring them up to the strength which I announced some time ago. If the Chief Constable believes that he requires further additions to the police force, he will come again and ask us. If he does so, I shall have the difficult task of seeking to persuade the Treasury to find the necessary money.
On today of all days we need to be clear about the distinction between security policy and security operations. I do not think that hon. Members would expect me, or would think that it was right for me, to dictate security to the security forces and to lay down the operations which they should carry out. My task and my responsibility to the House is to set the policy, to do my best to defend it and to answer for it. Once I have done that, I must leave it to the professional chiefs to use their own judgment to the best of their ability in carrying out their work.
The professional chiefs have my absolute confidence. Despite all our setbacks and all that goes wrong, I believe that we have in Northern Ireland the best anti-terrorist police force and Army in the western world. We need to recognise that more, and we need to understand the difficulties under which they operate, given the policy decisions that we lay down. We must recognise that they do an exceptional job.
I wish to tell the House a little about what goes on. The professional chiefs have increased greatly the visibility of

their forces in border areas and in other parts of the Province, to provide more reassurance to the community. There is a difficult balance to keep. They know—this is the tenor of all their advice to me—that the best means of deterring, capturing and dealing with terrorists is the undercover operation. However, we know that in the light of events of the past few weeks there has to be an overt presence if there is to be the confidence which the local population needs. In the past few weeks senior commanders have been moved to take charge of operations in key border areas. More police and UDR reservists have been called upon and other necessarily unpublicised actions will continue to develop.
There has been a threat in south Armagh for some while, and right hon. and hon. Members have drawn it to my attention. I took this up with the GOC at once. He told me that even before I had taken it up with him he had carried out 25 operations at company strength in south Armagh during the six weeks after 1 October. Those operations had been carried out in addition to the ordinary duties that were being performed. I do not believe that anyone knew that the 25 operations at company strength had been carried out or were being carried out. The operations were all carried out during the six weeks from 1 October to 14 November. It is important to realise that these things are going on even though we may not see them going on. I should not want anyone to believe that we are not making every possible effort.
We criticise when things go wrong, but there have been many occasions in the past few months when attacks have been frustrated. There have been great successes, but they go pretty well unmentioned. I do not want it to be forgotten how many arrests have been made and how many attacks have been frustrated. By not recognising the successes we sometimes undermine the resolution and courage of our security forces. I am certain that no one in the House wishes to do that.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the 25 company operations which took place in south Armagh? I am sure he recognises, as I do, that it is not possible in that part of Northern Ireland to deploy a company of regular soldiers once, let alone 25 times, without the people knowing what is going on. Covert operations at that strength are not possible. I know the people who live in the area. I know that they are dedicated terrorists, and I say that without wishing to accord them any aggrandisement. They will not allow company operations to be carried out 25 times in that area without some reaction. I do not believe that the operations were covert. I do not know what one means by a company operation. Is that a four-hour, eight-hour or 12-hour helicopter operation'? Is it a three-day operation or is it a seven-day operation? Operations that exceed 24 hours take a great deal of planning and expertise——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is developing into a speech. I hope that he will be brief.

Mr. Maginnis: I shall resume my place.

Mr. Prior: I have already said that I do not interfere with the operations that are carried out by the GOC. He tells me when I ask him whether he is satisfied with the position in south Armagh. He says that while he is not


satisfied, he has done this, that or the other. I do not ask him whether helicopter operations continued for eight hours or 12 hours. When a general officer commanding troops in Northern Ireland tells me that he is carrying out these operations, I consider that he is doing what he considers to be best and right for those operations. Surely that is a reasonable point of view.
I know that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) takes these matters seriously and takes them to heart. Of course he has a right to question me about them. However, I hope he will realise that there are others who think that they have knowledge of the area which he represents and of how to conduct operations. He must not think that he is the only expert. I do not pretend to be an expert. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has special knowledge, but I hope he will take it from me that we are trying to make progress. I leave to the judgment of the GOC whether operations should be covert, or whether some should be overt and some covert. I am reporting on what happened in south Armagh during a period of six weeks.

Mr. James Nicholson: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that I represent the area under discussion. I could even be said to live in it. There are many who pontificate upon the area, and that perhaps exacerbates the troubles within it. If 25 company operations have taken place, I say to the Secretary of State that I have spoken to people who live in the border areas who have not seen a soldier for four months. Where were those soldiers?

Mr. Prior: It is possible to carry out covert operations without the local population necessarily knowing that that is being done. I cannot go further than that. It is a good sign that many of those operations are carried out without people knowing about them. I do not think that that takes anything away from my point.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is it not clear that the IRA loses no opportunity to publicise what it does, even to the extent of using the funerals of its supporters for that purpose? The funerals of both IRA supporters who were recently killed were shown in ITN two days ago. In such conditions, is it wise for the security forces to feel that they do not need a higher profile as well?
There has been a debate about policing, and we have heard the expression about getting the bobby on to the beat so that people can see the police. Why should we think that Northern Ireland is different? How can we resist the criticism of many people in Northern Ireland, who are worried that security is not being treated sufficiently seriously, if, according to my right hon. Friend's own statement, they are not aware that what he told the House today has happened.

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is a question of trying to balance what is necessary for public reassurances, which is an important part of the matter, with what is best from the point of view of dealing with terrorism. We want to keep that balance. That is why I wanted to give as an illustration of the work that goes on the fact that those operations were carried out.

Mr. Peter Robinson: rose——

Mr. Prior: I shall continue with a little more of my speech. I dare say that there will be another opportunity to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Responsibility does not lie with the security forces alone. It is up to me, as the Secretary of State, the House and Northern Ireland politicians to give a political lead. The Northern Ireland community and the security forces are clear about where I stand. I shall not give way to terrorism, either by acceding to the political demands of the terrorists, which would undermine democracy not only in the United Kingdom but in the Republic of Ireland and beyond, or by sanctioning illegal and destructive behaviour in Northern Ireland, which would only cause the cancer of terrorism to spread still further.
There is much that others can and must do in the battle against terrorism. We must not play into the terrorists' hands by taking action or making statements that escalate tension and terrorism, because that would make the security forces' job even more dangerous and difficult and encourage sectarianism and revenge.
I understand and fully share the concern, anger and outrage about terrorism. The Government are dedicated and determined to bring it to an end. I shall take all the action necessary both in terms of providing support and resources to the security forces and on the political front to reduce the violence that has so afflicted Northern Ireland during the past four years and find, I hope, a way to make political progress.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman has slightly left my point. When he has meetings with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, surely, as someone who claims not to have their expertise, he would inquire about the fruits that they are receiving from their labours. What was gained from those 25 operations in the south Armagh area?

Mr. Prior: The difficulty about that argument is that, regrettably, in waging a campaign against terrorism there will be many occasions when we do not actually "get" a terrorist. There will be many occasions when the police or military presence deters terrorists and when attacks are frustrated. We can look at the record of the RUC and the other security forces this year. As I said in the House this afternoon, more than 550 people were charged with terrorist offences this year, a large number of them for murder and attempted murder. We have been more successful, although not as successful as we would like, in bringing terrorists to charge and then to conviction.
As the House knows—especially Northern Ireland Members—we have our ups and downs. Only a short while ago some people were saying that we were getting on top of the terrorist problem, but I never took that view, for the reasons that I have given. Nothing encourages a terrorist more than false hopes about the successes that one has had, but it is still possible to witness and believe the fruits of the efforts made by the security forces.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before my right hon. Friend goes on to discuss the technical details of the order, I put a question to him, and he knows why I put it. No hon. Member could do anything other than give my right hon. Friend, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Chief Constable the fullest support. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the morale of the ranks of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Why is it, after so long and patient a time of waiting, he still will not allow the representative


body of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Police Federation, which was set up by the House, to attend meetings of the Police Authority? Why has he not so far thought it right to have further outside inspection of the force's size, morale and equipment?

Mr. Prior: I have taken a considerable interest in that subject. My hon. Friend knows that I have no power to direct the Police Authority on this matter. I can only ask the authority whether it will accede to this request. It has strong views on the subject. My hon. Friend knows that so far the Police Authority has felt unable to accede to the request. That was why I asked Lord Plowden, who was a member of the original commission that reported on this matter, to come to the Province to consult interested parties to see whether he could find a way forward. I am extremely grateful to him for his trouble. He was not able to see a way forward for the moment. With that in mind, we shall have further talks in the near future to ascertain whether we can make any change. I cannot force the Police Authority to do this. It has strong views, and there is a good deal of support behind the authority for its attitudes.
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the police force and for his support. I believe that the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is very high. Not long ago I attended a passing-out parade of new recruits and was most impressed by their standards. Yesterday the GOC attended a passing-out parade, and he told me that he was equally impressed by the high standard and morale of the young men entering the service. Generally speaking, when I mention the RUC in any part of the United Kingdom, particularly in police circles, it is greeted with enormous respect for its courage and the quality of its professional approach.
The emergency powers are, of course, exceptional. We must recognise, notwithstanding recent events, that such departures from the ordinary procedure of the law are not an end in themselves. They are one element, but only one, in our continuing effort to create the conditions for a long-term end to terrorist violence in the Province—in other words, for a return to the situation where those powers are no longer needed.
For the present, however, we must ensure that the security forces have the powers that they need to carry out their duties effectively, just as they should also have the resources. Neither the Government nor the House have been timorous in that task, nor should we be. At the same time, I believe that the exceptional powers contained in the Act should remain only so long as they are strictly necessary. If we are to sustain confidence in the rule of law, it is imperative that there is confidence in the organs of government and the principles by which they operate.
The House will know that I have established an independent review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which is presently being conducted by Sir George Baker. I cannot commit him to any particular time scale, but I believe that he may be able to report in about two or three months' time. In those circumstances, I do not think that hon. Members will wish to examine either the detailed provisions of the Act or the strategy that it embodies. The Government will, of course, consider Sir George's recommendations extremely carefully. Naturally, there will be time for the House to debate the report and therefore the balance that the Act and Sir George's proposals strike. I should not, therefore, wish to propose to the House in advance of Sir George's report that

there should be any change in the provisions in force. Accordingly, I believe that the powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act currently in force should be allowed to continue for a further six months by virtue of the draft order.
Before I end, I should like to make some personal remarks. I recognise the anger and strong feelings of hon. Members, particularly at this time. I realise that they may well wish to say some pretty hard things about me, the Government and what we are seeking to do. Sometimes I can give out a bit of punishment myself as well as receive punishment from others. I bear no grudge against Northern Ireland Members, because I recognise that they have an enormous sense of duty and courage, which everyone in the House should recognise. It is a difficult job to be a Northern Ireland Member. I shall always defend that democracy, which enables hon. Members to express their views, however strongly put.
I believe that the British people are steadfast and unmoved by terrorism. They expect me, whether this side of the Irish Channel or the other side, to work for peace in every way possible. Tonight I can only express my sorrow at the events of the past few weeks and my determination to do all that I can to bring peace to Northern Ireland. I urge the House to accept the order and to give a backing to all those who seek to help in what is undoubtedly one of the oldest and most difficult problems that this country faces.

Mr. Clive Soley: It is just two years since I spoke for the Labour party on matters relating to Northern Ireland. It seems that every debate begins within too easy memory of another horror. After a while, words become inadequate. I can say nothing more than what was said by the Secretary of State. The whole House shares the horror at what has happened recently.
I said in an intervention to the Secretary of State that terror poses a challenge to the democratic state. That is one of the reasons why we always need to look carefully at the powers that we take in what is rightly called the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. It is a mistake to name just one or two of the organisations involved in paramilitary killing or in the political back-up to paramilitary activities. I know of organisations on both sides of the divide that are involved in killing and are within the law inasmuch as they are set up politically, yet they support killing.
Whether we are talking about the Protestant Action Force, the Provisional IRA, INLA, Provisional Sinn Fein or some of the groups and individuals on the Unionist side that give overt and covert support to violence, we must be clear that we are condemning all of them. Otherwise, the message that is picked up in Northern Ireland is simply that the British condemn the paramilitaries on the Republican side but do not condemn those on the Unionist side. We must remember that only recently two motor cyclists rode up to some Catholics who were walking to get their dole, shot one of them dead and injured others. There are other such examples.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: I shall give way on this important point, but I do not intend to give way much because the Secretary of State took a considerable time. I do not complain about


that. He was absolutely right to give way as many times as he did. It would be less correct for me to do so. If I did so, I would take up too much time.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the murder at Newtownabbey of the chap drawing his unemployment benefit, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was instantly condemned publicly by my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs).

Mr. Soley: I did not claim for one moment that members of parties in the House have not condemned such killings. I have discussed the matter with members of the parties represented here. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that in Northern Ireland legitimate groups have justified the violence. They did so recently. I could give the name of one organisation. I hope that Conservative Members will visit it. There are photographs round the walls of its party headquarters of its paramilitaries killed in action. I am not saying that members of the Democratic Unionist party and the Official Unionist party are not condemning the killings, because they are. I respect the right hon. Gentleman's intervention.
However, if we are not clear in our condemnation of the political and paramilitary activity on both sides, the message to the people of Northern Ireland will be that the British care only about condemning the Republican side, not the Unionist paramilitary groups. Much of the killing since 1969 came from the Unionist side. That is why we must condemn them all.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We do condemn them all.

Mr. Soley: That is what I am asking for. I want to hear it loud and clear on both sides and at all times. Otherwise we shall do more damage to our cause than we need. Terror is a challenge to our democratic state. There is no doubt that the aim of the paramilitaries is to present themselves as the protectors of their communities—on both sides — and to undermine the legitimacy of the state. That is why we must always question and examine the need for Acts of Parliament.
In 1981 the Labour party said that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 needed to be reviewed. We welcome the review by Sir George Baker. I also welcome the statement by the Secretary of State that a debate will take place.
The emergency powers legislation has been with us since the early 1970s, when it superseded the measure that introduced special powers. The emergency has lasted for 14 years — a long time. Why have we had such an emergency on our hands? We all know that the problem ultimately is political. The Government recognise that fact both explicitly and implicitly.
The problem is as it has always been—that Britain is unsure how to respond. I well understand how successive Governments responded to what was a major crisis in Northern Ireland, which seemed to blow from side to side day by day. We thought that the best solution to the problem would be for the people of Northern Ireland to get together and work together and somehow solve the problem in that way. That is not enough. Britain must have a clear view of the position and make a statement. The British Government must decide what they want in

Northern Ireland. Do we want a united Ireland? Should Northern Ireland be integrated into the United Kingdom? Do we want an alternative status? Those are the only three options that can be considered.
Before any hon. Member says, "Even to talk about this is to give in to the IRA," I say that there are many ways of giving in to terrorism. One of the best ways is to allow the terrorists to dictate the terms of the debate. I shall never do that; nor will any of my hon. Friends. A real need exists to debate the alternatives.
Until we face the fact that Britain has not taken on board where it wants the borders to be positioned, we shall continue to duck the problem. The British Government are not giving a clear statement as to where they wish to have the border. Do the Government wish the border to remain in its present position? If so, we must say so.
Perhaps we should follow the point made with infinite clarity by the Official Unionist party, that Northern Ireland should be treated as part of the United Kingdom. We all know that it has never been treated as part of the United Kingdom by the Labour party, the Conservative party or any other party. We have all treated it differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. Until we face that fact, I say with infinite sadness that the violence and discrimination will ebb and flow as it has done since the order was introduced.
Meanwhile, we have our so-called emergency and temporary legislation. What happens? The emergency and temporary legislation puts down deep roots within the democratic state, our democratic forums and the body of our civil rights. It becomes a cancer—a parasite—in our society. Civil liberties are slowly eroded. Each time it happens, it is justified by a specific and horrific example. The result is immense danger to democracy.
Some of the legislation finds its way into other legislation that we are considering. One need only look as far as the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to realise that such legislation, which has previously been held to be satisfactory only within the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 is now permissible. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, when enacted, will be permanent, and it will apply throughout the United Kingdom. I emphasise that the danger to democracy in Britain, Northern Ireland and Eire is immense.
"Temporary" begins to mean "semi-permanent" and "emergency" also begins to mean "semi-permanent". Such Acts of Parliament alienate the community and undermine respect for law and order. I might even get the support of the Democratic Unionist party by saying that informers, or super-grasses as they are more generally called, have undermined respect for the law. That is what happens to both sides of the community. The emergency provisions legislation undermines the confidence of the minority community in British justice more than it does that of the majority community, although it dangerously affects it, too.
That is why I believe that direct rule—however much I recognise that it is the best alternative in the short term —will in the long term undermine the position of both the Unionists and the republicans.
I shall not ask the Government to respond in detail to the points that I am about to put—it would be wrong to do so, as Sir George Baker has yet to make his report and


the House has then to debate it—but they must be put on record, considered in Sir George Baker's report and dealt with by the House.
About 90 per cent. of those arrested under the emergency provisions legislation during the period January to October 1980 were released without charge. That is an example of the way in which we can alienate those whom we are attempting to win over. The exercise of the legislation has become almost a way of life in some parts of the minority community in Northern Ireland, and I understand why. I also understand some of the problems underlying such an attitude. I must emphasise that we are losing the fight as long as that position continues. Most of the 90 per cent. who were arrested were fingerprinted and photographed. That fact gives substance to the argument that we are facing an erosion of our civil liberties. Prior to the fingerprinting or photographing of people, would we in the United Kingdom have accepted such a procedure into our legal system for people who were not to be charged or who were not to appear in court? Only the nature of the emergency that we are facing makes us tolerate such behaviour.
Mr. Dermot Walsh has carried out some useful research in this sphere. One of his findings was that more than 70 per cent. of those released without charge were not questioned about their involvement in specific incidents. If that is correct, we must bear in mind what I have just said about the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. We are involved in the collection of information. We would be acting in a more open and honest way if we said that such Acts were "Collection of Information Acts", because that is what they are. That is the reality of the position. We must not hide behind other words. The word "exclusion" means a form of internal exile, but it is given a different meaning to make it sound respectable.
We must also understand that while the Acts are methods of gathering information, if careful checks are not made, they can become a form of intimidation.
I do not suggest, and have never believed, that the powers can be swept away overnight. The House must challenge the Acts because of the length of time they have been on the statute book. We must also constantly question them in detail. Otherwise, they will become a permanent part of our law — a parasite on our society and democracy. Their roots will go very deep and it will take years to eliminate them.
The Bennett report recommended that suspects should have the right to see a solicitor, and that the right should be respected prior to 48 hours elapsing. I hope that the House and Sir George Baker will consider that suggestion. Mr. Dermot Walsh found evidence that Bennett's recommendations were not always being followed.
A confession in Britain is admissible in court only if the prosecution can prove that it was given voluntarily. Under section 8 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, confessions are admissible unless the suspect can prove torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. That again is a major problem. Section 11, and probably sections 12 and 13 as well, could be thought to be in direct conflict with article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I think that Sir George Baker will be considering the case-hardening of judges who have to sit in Diplock courts. We all recognise that it must be incredibly difficult for any judge to undertake that task. However it is

important to look at the acquittal rates, because acquittal rates in contested cases—and my figures relate solely to them—show whether there is a problem in that regard.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: In all fairness, will not the hon. Gentleman agree that as a result of the Bennett report and the action taken on it, suspects are, in some respects, more protected in Northern Ireland than they are in England?

Mr. Soley: I recognise that the Bennett report gave several very important recommendations. However, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not go into too much detail, as I am aware that many other hon. Members wish to speak. Much as I should like to expand on the problem, it would be wrong to do so.
In 1973, 57 per cent. of those involved in contested cases in Diplock courts were acquitted. In 1976, the figure had fallen to 35 per cent., and in 1981 to 33 per cent. One possible explanation for that is that the judges may have become case-hardened. Acquittal rates in contested cases that are held before juries are quite different. In 1974, the acquittal rate was 38 per cent. In 1977, the figure was 61 per cent. and in 1979 it was 59 per cent.
I do not draw any great conclusions from my next point, because I am not quite sure what to conclude. However, it is worthy of consideration. Of the cases that Dennot Walsh looked at in 1981, no Loyalists who pleaded not guilty were acquitted. However, 50 per cent. of Republicans were acquitted. That could imply several things. For example, it could imply that cases against Republicans were likely to be pursued more frequently than cases against Loyalists, or that judges were being harsher on the Loyalists. There are several possibilities. However, we must consider that point, as the figures must be telling us something. The difference is too great for it to be a matter of chance.
The Labour party recognises—and it is in our policy document—that the security forces have a very difficult task. I do not in any way criticise them, because I recognise how difficult their task is. I should not like to do it. However, for all the reasons that I have given, and that have been mentioned by the Secretary of State and others, the onus on the democratic state is to ensure that minimum standards are maintained at all times. There have been no prosecutions of security forces personnel in connection with deaths from plastic baton rounds. That is worrying. Children aged between 11 and 13 years have been killed by plastic bullets which clearly, on the medical evidence available, had been fired from within the restricted area. That can only have an alienating effect on the minority community. I cannot sufficiently emphasise the importance of that.
A relative of one of those children came to see me here. He quite openly said that he thought that the Unionists were fair-minded people but that he wanted justice done in his case. He did not understand why no action had followed a child being killed by a plastic baton round that was known to have been fired within the range limit set down in the guidelines. We must pay attention to that. If we do not, we shall lose the argument in the minority community. That is why I emphasise that I am not making an attack on the security forces. I recognise that their job is difficult, but we must ask them to do it to the highest possible standards. That is the only way to defeat the


paramilitaries. I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State that we cannot do that by going outside the law, however tempting that may be from time to time.
Similarly, coroner inquests sometimes trouble me. They are hamstrung by the inability to express an opinion on criminal or civil liability. There are often long delays before inquests are held on disputed killings. Sometimes those delays are due to an application by someone who seeks to present his case to the coroner himself. However, in other cases that is not so. Again, I must mention the danger of alienation, which is central to my argument.

Rev. William McCrea: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I have not heard one word about the innocent in Ulster. He has spent almost all of the time talking about alienation and the minority community. What about the alienation of the widows and the children who are left without their fathers simply because they had the Queen's uniform on their backs?

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman has not listened carefully to my speech. Perhaps he will read my remarks tomorrow. He will find that I associated myself with the remarks made by the Secretary of State about people being killed and that I remarked on having to comment frequently on that in the House. The hon. Gentleman will also see that the underlying thread of my argument is that we must defeat violence and the paramilitary groups. That is our aim. Given that, I should be failing to fulfil my task if I did not say how that should be done.
It would be all too easy to make a speech condemning paramilitary activity and killings. However, the words in themselves would not stop anything. The tragedy is that such words cannot achieve that aim, however deeply we may feel. I took a growing interest in the problems of Northern Ireland, because I was horrified by the effect that they had on the people there, and on civil liberties. That is what drove me to take a deep interest in the matter. I would not be here if I did not have those feelings. Such feelings are not unique to the hon. Gentleman. We all experience them, but our task is to find a solution to the problems, and not simply to make statements which, however attractive and sympathetic will not change things.
We must also consider descheduling offences. At the moment we obviously cannot return to jury trials. However, Dermot Walsh found that between January and March 1981, about 40 per cent. of cases involved ordinary offences. I do not have all the figures with me. I shall want to look at them more closely before drawing any conclusions. However, we need to be more flexible about descheduling offences. Perhaps more cases could be tried in ordinary courts. Perhaps we should say that all cases should be tried in ordinary courts unless the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General decides otherwise. We should draw attention to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which has suggested that an immediate reform should be a reduction of penalties for certain scheduled offences, so that they can be dealt with in magistrates' courts.
The commission points out that in 1982, about 47 per cent. of those convicted of the less serious offences were given non-custodial sentences. If so, perhaps we should normalise the law once more and stop the drift towards the Diplock courts. A return to jury trials is important, even

if difficult at present. If we are to deal with the problem properly, we may have to consider more carefully the question of using informers at non-jury trials. Perhaps we should make jury trials available for cases involving informers. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) should agree with me about alienation, because the danger is that people will lose their respect for law and order. As that disrespect grows, it undermines the whole concept of the state.
I have said elsewhere on a number of occasions—and I made the point in a question to the Secretary of State this afternoon — that an important and useful way forward would be to discuss with the Dublin Government the possibilities of an all-Ireland court and an all-Ireland police force. That is not simply a throwaway remark, and I am not thinking just in terms of the Labour party's policy of achieving a united Ireland by consent.
Like many other hon. Members, I have always regarded the paper guarantee as worthless, in a sense—or not worth worrying about. We all prefer to be governed by consent, but we all know, as do the parties in the South, that 1 million people cannot be persuaded to live with another 4 million without consent.
There is a strong case for making flexible, innovative and constitutional changes that do not force the Unionists into a united Ireland. The guarantee, as the Labour party understands it, is that the Unionists not only should not, but cannot, be forced into a united Ireland without their consent. However, the important corollary is that they must not have a veto on political developments. It is our task to show the people of Northern Ireland that the all-Ireland solution offers a better alternative, and that that solution can provide peace and prosperity for all.
I sense a growing change in the political climate of the Conservative party. Some years ago the Conservative party would not have considered it, but there are now signs of a recognition of the need for an all-Ireland dimension. That is suggested by, among other things, the fact that the Official Unionist party and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the Democratic Unionist party suspect the Secretary of State of selling them out. I do not suspect the Secretary of State of selling them out. What I suspect—or what I think—is that current Tory policy is inevitably leaning towards a united Ireland. It does not follow that the Secretary of State is being dishonest.
There is real scope now for political leadership from Britain, and that leadership could well be given in relation to the all-Ireland court.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks, but would he briefly explain what he means by an all-Ireland police force? He knows that there is much support for cross-border policing, but that is a very different matter from taking the next step to an all-Ireland service.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my conclusion. I have a little more to say. I do not want to spell out in great detail what I have in mind. One cannot reasonably do that before there have been full negotiations and discussions not only with Dublin but with the parties in the North. A number of Unionists in the North would welcome this move. I am thinking perhaps not about the parties represented here, but about ordinary members of the Unionist community. They know that in certain circumstances, and with changes to the institutions, their lives could be safer.
What we have in mind is a recognition that certain offences, both terrorist and non-terrorist, could be tried in an all-Ireland court. I have always talked about eventual federal solutions, and what we have in mind would not be dissimilar to a federal system. A number of options would be available. One could include only terrorist offences, for example, or all offences defined as serious. The court would be one way of getting back to the jury system somewhat more quickly. That is an important point to bear in mind.
I have made no hard and fast decisions about an all-Ireland police force. It would be inappropriate to do so now. However, the time is ripe for exploring the two areas. There is the possibility of recruiting and training a force on both sides of the border in common training institutes set up on both sides of the border. The force would have a separate identity and would be able to operate in areas agreed by the British and Irish Governments.
While moving towards that arrangement, we could usefully consider the exchange of personnel between the forces of both sides. One of the ideas that keeps some of the Republican paramilitary groups going is the belief that they are shooting occupying forces. Let us put them on the spot. Let us make it plain that we are thinking of an all-Ireland solution in certain areas. Let us make it plain that we recognise the fact that the Unionists cannot be forced into a united Ireland without their consent, but that we are determined to go ahead with flexible, innovative and constitutional changes which take into account the legitimate interests of both the dominant cultures in Northern Ireland.
The Unionists cannot dominate the Republicans and the Republicans cannot dominate the Unionists, but they can kill each other. They can resist all progress. They can dig in and refuse to move. If the British Government do not take a lead, in conjunction with the Dublin Government, we shall be holding similar debates in 10, 20 or 30 years time. By then it will be too late to save the many lives that Government Members are as concerned about as we are. It will be too late to protect the body of our civil liberties, which will have been seriously eroded. That is the essence of our case.

Rev. Ian Paisley: No Loyalists in Northern Ireland tonight will derive any comfort from the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). We meet tonight under a dark shadow, and no one should think that it is the last shadow that will fall. Some hon. Members could well be making their last speech in this House. We from Northern Ireland know that only too well, In the Northern Ireland Assembly a few days ago, I said that there would be vacant benches, and so there are.
The Assembly Member Edgar Graham, whose family are constituents of mine in Ballymena and who was himself a fellow townsman of mine, was brutally done to death by an IRA murder gang at Queen's university yesterday. He was a young man of brilliant academic performance, a young man with a good and strong political future, a young man who would probably have become a leader of the Official Unionist party. He was shot down in cold blood and then gloried over by those who did it. shortly afterwards, a book table was set up in the precincts of the university to sell the literature of the murderers. What is more, that university has had a repetition of deeds

of blood. There was an attempt upon the life of a noble Lord from this side of the water who came to deliver a lecture. The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was almost assassinated. There was an attempt upon the life of a police officer who was continuing his studies. Now Edgar Graham, an Assembly Member, has been done to death.
There is a Member of this House who does not attend the House —the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). We have been told tonight about alienation and reconciliation and trying to get together to solve Northern Ireland's problems. Recently the hon. Member for Belfast, West, who is now president of Sinn Fein, addressed a commemoration service at Kilmichael, in the Irish Republic. He spoke clearly and plainly.
The Secretary of State, who spoke with strength and feeling tonight, told us that these people had to make a choice. They have already made their choice. What are we waiting for? What do they say?
The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that Mr. Charles Armstrong was a legitimate target. He was the chairman of Armagh district council, a respected member of his community who served as a major in the Ulster Defence Regiment. An elected member of this House said that he was a legitimate target. He said that Mr. Armstrong was killed by "freedom fighters". "Freedom fighters'. put him to death.
There will be no coming together of the people I represent and Mr. Adams. Let no one in the House suggest that there could be a reconciliation between a man with those principles and views and those whom I represent in the House. He talks about his willingness to kill:
In my role within the IRA and within an armed struggle, I would have no compunction at all.
He felt that he was doing a good enough job. He was further asked whether he would welcome young people into the IRA and he said, "Of course." He would welcome young people into a murder gang. He said:
the people engaged in the IRA, whether men or women, are freedom fighters and the people who are commemorated today (at Kilmichael) were freedom fighters.
The Secretary of State and his Ministers must make a decision. Is that the type of man who is to be welcomed to the table in the Stormont discussion room to discuss so-called constituency matters? How can Ministers sit down with a man who has declared that he encourages people to commit these acts of blood and violence?

Mr. Soley: The point that I was trying to make is that, as I understand it, the deputy lord mayor of Belfast—if I am wrong perhaps I will be corrected—holds that post partly as a result of a vote by the Democratic Unionist party. He stated clearly that the red hand commandos in the Ulster Volunteer Force are necessary. He has photographs of the paramilitary all round his room.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The man to whom the hon. Gentleman refers is not a member of the party that I lead nor is he a member of the parties represented on the Opposition Benches. If the deputy lord mayor of Belfast said what the hon. Member for Belfast, West has said, I would equally condemn him. and well he knows it.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West has said, "Go on with your murder." How can one sit in the council chamber with a person who says, "You are legitimate targets"?
The people of Northern Ireland are telling the Secretary of State that he must make the decision immediately to


outlaw Sinn Fein. I take the view that we should press for outlawing Sinn Fein now. That is the message I received from the people of Northern Ireland.
How in the name of goodness can I return to my constituents and tell them, "Everything is all right. Do not worry. The Secretary of State has made a strong statement, and all is well."? In a few days another leader of Ulster society will be murdered. Another promising young man will be cut down.
Those people are the enemies of democracy and of elected representatives, who are doing their job. They boycott the chambers to which they are elected, because they do not believe in the democratic process. They are in business to destroy the leadership of the two Unionist parties. I have told the police that there are six or seven cells of them at work and that five or six members of the Assembly have been appointed as targets. One of those targets was Edgar Graham. In Dublin on the night before poor Edgar Graham was murdered, those in Republican circles talked about his murder.
It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said what he did in the House yesterday. The police have a serious responsibility in these matters and they must act. Opposition Members talked about the credibility of and reliance and confidence in the police. The people of Northern Ireland need to have confidence in the police. I have confidence in the rank and file of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and I have always backed them. On previous occasions I have spoken in the Chamber when every hon. Member opposed me, and I would be failing in my duty if today I did not say that, across the board, there is no confidence in the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Let no one delude himself. The Police Federation was displeased with the Chief Constable. It met and proposed taking stronger measures. A vote was taken, and although it did not go against the Chief Constable, there was only one vote in it. Where are the men who dared to raise their voices against the Chief Constable now? They have been shifted by the man who does not believe in democracy in the police.
Why does not the Police Authority admit the representatives of the federation? A former elder in my church was on the Police Authority. He told me that the Chief Constable said, "I cannot have men in the Police Authority who would tell me what to do. I would not tolerate that." But that is not the purpose of their representation. They should tell the Police Authority what the ordinary rank and file man is saying. That is democracy, and we need it in the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The Chief Constable does not have the confidence of the people or of the political leaders of Northern Ireland because we cannot speak to him. Never before has there been an inspector general or a chief constable who did not meet the elected representatives of the people. He has closed himself up in his ivory tower and has refused to meet us. How can he expect us to understand his policies when he will not explain what he is doing or grant us an interview? Today I received a letter from the Police Authority saying that in a month's time the Chief Constable may be prepared to meet the elected representatives of the people, but that he will meet them in the presence of the Police Authority. All questions must

be given in advance in writing. I must tell the House that in a month's time some people will not be around to put questions to the Chief Constable. We must see him now and tell him what the people of Northern Ireland think.
No one should deny that there is a difference between the Chief Constable and the Commissioner in Dublin. There is no use in papering over that crack. We know what happened to the former commissioner in Dublin. Let it be said here clearly that the Chief Constable, by his actions, has forfeited the confidence of the political leaders of Northern Ireland. We heard tonight about the great morale of the RUC. I accept that the young men who put on the uniform and who go about their business have courage, resolve and dedication. I salute them, as should every right-thinking person. However, they have serious misgivings about what has happened. Moreover, the higher ranks of the RUC — including some assistant chief constables — have misgivings. If the Chief Constable does not have the full confidence of his men, how can this battle be fought effectively?
No one in the House says that the RUC should operate outside the law. No hon. Member has ever advocated that, but we urge that every step must be taken within the law to defeat terrorism. There were strong words from the Secretary of State tonight, but the people of Northern Ireland do not wish to hear strong words. They want to see action on the ground. His words will be weighed against the action taken.
It is no wonder that several Members on the Opposition Benches asked about south Armagh and the border. A deputation from my party visited the man in charge of the border—the deputy chief constable, Mr. Rogers—and two assistant chief constables, Mr. Crutchley and Mr. Cushley, and talked to them for three hours. They admitted that the border could be sealed, not by placing men along it but by closing the vital road intersections. That is how it was done in the past. Where do the bombs, bomb materials, guns and bullets come from? They come from the Republic. If we could stop the flow of weapons, we would get on top of the situation. But the border is wide open, and I invite hon. Members to visit it. A Member of the European Parliament who visited it said that there was more security on the border between his country and another friendly nation, than there was on the Irish border.
The border may be crossed at any time of the day or night without challenge, which is why the Darkley killings were so easy. The House may not know that a woman who intended to go to the Darkley service that evening was stopped by the terrorists on the road and told not to go to the hall that night, but to go home. The terrorists control the area. I do not know where the security operations took place, but I know that on many parts of the border there is no security. The woman who buried her husband, Mrs. Brown, told me, "This is the first time for months that I have seen a police officer or a soldier here." It was a bit late for them to appear at her husband's funeral.
The border is the source of the problem and must be dealt with. Terrorism will never be defeated until the border is sealed. It can be sealed; that is what the police officers said. We told them what we wanted and argued our case. We will go back, but what is the news from the border now? It is that manpower is not available and that the high profile around certain churches in the border area will have to be lowered. We put it to the police that we did not think the way to guard these churches was to have a police presence outside each one but that the approaches


and vital intersections should be guarded. This could be done with less manpower than putting a static guard outside each church door. That is how it must be done. However, we are told that after Christmas they will have to revert to what they had before. What does that mean? It means that the people in the border area feel that they are being abandoned.
People are almost denied the right to defend themselves. I remember stating in the House that these people had an in alienable right to defend themselves and I was strongly criticised for saying so. I am glad that a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who is not in the House tonight, has changed his tune completely. What did he say the other day? He said that if he was in that area he would apply for a gun to defend his wife and family.
What about the people who live along the border and who have applied for weapons but who have not been granted them by the RUC? They have no weapons to defend themselves if they are attacked. How do they feel tonight? It is all right for us sitting here in the quiet, comfort and security of this House, but what about the people along the border?
The House should face up realistically to the facts. There is no such thing as reconciliation with Gerry Adams or the IRA. I have read about a plan that is to be put before the Dublin forum of two flags, two ideas of keeping Sunday, two oaths of allegiance, representatives coming here and going to Dublin, two police forces, two armies, two Governments and so on. The suggestion is joint sovereignty. It is absolute nonsense.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) talked about a united police college and about people joining from the North and the South. Does he not realise that those people would be prime targets for the gunmen who would say, "Look what we have now. We are having an invasion from the North. The RUC, the dreaded, black RUC, are now walking our streets." This would be a recipe for the biggest blood bath that the emerald isle has ever had. Let us face up to reality. Unless the Government deal properly with terrorism there will be Armageddon. Let no one be fooled about it. I am amazed more and more by what happens.
In regard to what the hon. Member for Belfast, South said about his friend, I know how he must have felt. The police were fed certain information about that young man being in danger. I and many people in Northern Ireland knew that Edgar Graham was in danger. I should have thought that police intelligence would have known that. According to the Newsletter this morning, his Member of Parliament went to the police and told them that. The young man got protection for one night. Then there is a statement from the police authorities that he did not ask for a bodyguard. Every hon. Member knows that nobody asks for a bodyguard. One cannot go to the police and ask for one. The Secretary of State made it clear today that Mr. Graham could not have asked for a bodyguard, and yet the police headquarters issued that statement. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Belfast, South described it in the Newsletter as a half truth to cover a whole lie. Is it any wonder that there are people in Belfast who say tonight that Edgar Graham would have been alive if the police had protected him?
There is one person sitting in this House, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William

McCrea), about whom I worry. He walks a knife edge. Why? Because his constituency could be won at a by-election by the Sinn Fein and it has its eyes on it. I worry about his protection, and I wonder whether the police really take any notice of it. That is what we worry about I wonder what I shall say to his widow when she asks me why certain things were not done. Hon. Members may smile, but we have to face the widows and we have to hear the children cry and ask, "Why did my daddy die?"
I have a responsibility to say to the authorities and to Sir John Hermon—I know that he has no love for me or my party—that he has a duty to do as Chief Constable, and he should not take out his spite on members of my party who are public representatives. I could continue on that line, but I shall not pursue it. However, if my hon. Friend is murdered I shall say that I told the House about it and put it on the record.
The murder gangs have got their first victim, and if something is not done they will get their sixth victim. What is it for? It is to destroy the Unionist leadership and to bring the country into anarchy, and when they have that they will have a field day. Mr. Adams has changed his tune, and has said that they are not now against the South and they do not want any problems there. He said that it is now the North that they want to take over. They used to want to bring down the Dublin Government as well, but now they are concentrating on the North. The House must face up to that.
I understand the Secretary of State's position. He talks about giving out punishment. I have no harsh words for him or the Chief Constable, but both of them must go. I must be honest. I said that outside the House and I say it again now. They have failed the people of Northern Ireland. That is what my constituents say to me, and I would not be a man if I did not stand up and say it in the House. The Secretary of State knows that when I speak to him I speak bluntly and clearly, as he does to me, and rightly so. I can take punishment as well as anybody else in the House. I have a hide like a rhinoceros. That is why I tell the House that that is my constituents' view, and why I put it plain and clear that that is how the people of Northern Ireland feel.
People have said to me, "But you are for the Assembly and Mr. Prior brought the Assembly into being." The security of my people is more important to me than any British Minister in the British or any other Cabinet. My people are the people of Northern Ireland.
I ask the House to consider where in the United Kingdom there would be a chief constable who, in an hour of crisis, was not prepared to meet the Members of Parliament from his area. If any other chief constable had done that, what a row there would be in the House. Yet now we have the wheeling and dealing and the trying to make arrangements to meet. Some might say that we could have had a meeting, and point out that the Secretary of State wrote to me. We have heard a lot about the letter which was delivered to my house by hand. I replied immediately by hand. I got a reply to my reply only today, conveniently and purposely because this debate was to take place.
To try to set up a meeting as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland attempted to do was asking the leaders of the people of Northern Ireland to do something that they could not do, and I will tell the House why. If the leaders of the people of Northern Ireland are to meet the Secretary of State and the GOC and the Chief Constable, we must


meet as individual parties because our viewpoints are entirely diverse. The leader of the SDLP is in the House and he knows my view on the subject. His party, by a resolution in conference, does not support the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. John Hume: That is not true.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member appeared in a television programme with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and me during the election. We asked him whether he would call on his people to join the RUC, and he said, "Definitely not." He knows that, while his party may say that it supports the RUC, it does not support the RUC as the police force of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hume: My party has made its position clear on many occasions. We fully and unequivocally support the security forces in Northern Ireland in impartially seeking out anybody who commits a crime. I suggest that that is a much more responsible position than the position of those who, when they are dissatisfied with the performance of the security forces, threaten to form their own forces or who, indeed, consort openly with the paramilitary on occasion when it suits them to overthrow the democratically elected system of government of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I hear that equivocation, that they will support the security forces when they impartially carry out the law.
The resolution was passed and a prominent member of the hon. Member's party in north Belfast left his party over this very issue. But if the hon. Gentleman is to have a Damascus road experience and calls upon the SDLP supporters to join the RUC, nobody would welcome it more than I would, and he knows that. When he speaks, perhaps he will come a little further and say that he will join them and help them impartially to execute the law in Northern Ireland. That will be the day, and a happy day for the people of Northern Ireland and for those who support the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I would not—I have made it clear to him personally—sit down with him to talk about security when our views are entirely diverse. As he views the situation, as everybody knows, the only solution is a united Ireland. Ulster is a failed entity and there is no future except in a united Ireland. I believe the exact opposite. Between those two constitutional viewpoints there is no reconciliation. One cannot reconcile Republicanism with Unionism. He knows that, and I know it. That is why I cannot sit down with him in such a meeting.
Why did the Secretary of State, if he was so keen for us to have such a meeting, not invite us individually? We are still waiting for that invitation. Now the situation has changed. I am prepared to sit down with the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable and the GOC at any time. I have no criticism to pass on the GOC because the Chief Constable has said that he gives the GOC his orders and the Army does exactly as he orders it to do. The man who gives the orders is the man who must bear responsibility for what is happening in Northern Ireland.
As a party we have made submissions to Sir George Baker. I do not wish to speak at length on the content of

those submissions. I think that changes need to be made. I am in favour of jury trials. I am sorry that it is not possible to return to jury trials. They should not have been done away with. I made my views clear in the House when I voted on the question. I believe in the descheduling of certain crimes. Something should be done to get people into court more quickly to be tried for their offences.
The other day a young man who had been accused of a crime and kept in prison for over a year was declared not guilty. What happened to his home, his work, his marriage and his family in the course of that year? The process of getting people into the courts needs to be speededup.
I am not against informers. If a person turns Queen's evidence, well and good, but the rule that applies in the rest of the United Kingdom should apply in Northern Ireland. In the rest of the United Kingdom, when a person informs, he is tried in the courts and what he has done is kept in mind. But in our country a person who informs has two great incentives. "I will get out of gaol and I will have a comfortable life in future," he tells himself.
These people are criminals. Indeed, they would be no good as informers if they were not deep-dyed criminals. The Chief Constable refers to them as converted terrorists. I do not. These men have the greatest of all motives—to get out—so they must tell a good story. What is more, they get out with money in their hands.
Consider one case involving a supergrass. It was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he was a perjurer and liar, but on his evidence alone men tonight are behind bars. That system will bring Northern Ireland into disrepute, not only throughout the United Kingdom but eventually in Strasbourg, and when the European Court considers it the chickens will come home to roost.
We think of the old quasi-legal appendices to internment; a man stood behind a blanket and gave evidence against somebody who, he said, should be interned. It was nonsense. It was an insult to common decency and civil rights. I am totally opposed to murderers and criminals receiving large sums of money and a free life in Australia, New Zealand or elsewhere for putting people behind bars.
A senior police officer was mentioned by one of these informers, but that policeman did not stand in the dock. The evidence that was to have put everybody else away was dropped in his case, for he was able to prove that it was a set-up and that he was not guilty. I have seen the affidavit that was sworn by the individual concerned. That is why I say that it is a dangerous practice. Let us revert to the practice that applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Let there be no deviation.
The Chief Constable says that that is the only way to win the war. That shows that his operations on the ground are suspect. If that is the only way to win the war against terrorism, the war will never be won. I look forward to a full debate when Sir George Baker reports, and there are other matters which my hon. Friends will no doubt bring to the attention of the House.
There is a resolve among Northern Ireland people that the IRA or any other terrorist group shall not deter them from holding on to their heritage and keeping within the United Kingdom. I say that loud and clear. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) talked about not condemning paramilitaries. Protestant paramilitaries fired bullets into my home. If one looks up back numbers of the Belfast Telegraph, one can read how they said that they were out to get me. I condemn those who kill, no matter


what their religion, and I have often said that a Protestant who takes up a gun and commits murder is a disgrace to Protestantism and a disgrace to the Protestant ethos, and I repeat that.
One cannot take away from people their inalienable right to defend themselves if the authorities of the Crown say, "We cannot defend you." Indeed, police officers have visited people in Northern Ireland and said just that. An Assembly man, a member of my party, had a gunman at his door but fortunately escaped that murder attempt. The other day policemen arrived at his home and said, "Watch yourself," and left him. What should that man do? He has only one thing left to him to do, which is to defend himself. That is not outside the law; that is his inalienable right. If that was happening in Britain, every hon. Member would be up on his feet saying, "Yes, he should be permitted in those circumstances to practise that inalienable right." That is all we are asking for. We are not asking to be allowed to go outside the law.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I can offer some little reassurance to other hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland who have been told that they may not be here for the next debate, for I remember the same hon. Member, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), standing in the same place last May and saying that I should not be here in this Parliament.
Other of these biannual debates have taken place in years when much heavier casualities, numerically, were being inflicted in Northern Ireland by terrorism, but we all know that this is the most sombre debate yet in the series. It takes place under the impression of very recent events, but also of the accumulation and iteration of similar outrages over the weeks. It takes place therefore in an atmosphere, not only in this House, of bewilderment and frustration. In Northern Ireland the people whom we represent say, "We must have more security"; and those whom they send here to speak for them take up the words and say, "There must be more security." The Secretary of State, in all sincerity and with the most evident sense of his personal responsibility, stands at the Dispatch Box and reports to the House and then challenges us saying, "What more can I do?"
Not just for myself, but for my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to say that the cause of this tragedy, this continuing tragedy, of this bewilderment and this frustration, is twofold. It lies in a fundamental misinterpretation of the nature of terrorism in the Province —a misinterpretation which is much more common in Great Britain that it is in the Province itself—and in a fundamental error of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
The misinterpretation to which I refer is the common assumption — not common in Northern Ireland where people understand and see, but common in parlance and the media, and popular here in Great Britain — that, essentially, this is a civil conflict, an internecine conflict between people who cannot get on with one another, who cannot be reconciled to one another, who murder one another, that it is sectarian.
That theory will not survive the most cursory examination of the scene in this year, 1983. There have been some murders which can be properly classified as sectarian—merely killing a man of another faith because

he is of another faith — but, overwhelmingly, the murders which have taken place, the outrages which have taken place, have not originated from within Northern Ireland. They are not the phenomenon of an irreconcilable community which is tearing itself apart.
That was one of the most striking impressions which Darkley made even upon people here a fortnight ago. They saw whence came that fearful deed—from a mile away across the frontier. I remember that in the interchange which followed in the House there was reference to the Dundalk trail, the murder route which leads from the Republic into the heart of the Province. Even yesterday., when Graham was struck down, that presence, that factor, was not absent.
In essence, terrorism is maintained and continues in Northern Ireland from a base in the adjacent Republic; it comes from across the frontier. That is its nature and its intractability. Its terror derives from that fact. It is in the face of that fact that the Government have pursued a radically misconceived policy towards the Irish Republic.
The Secretary of State twice said that he would speak personally. May I speak personally across the Floor of the House to him? In no criticism of that policy that I make —which is of much longer duration than his occupation of his present office—do I cast any aspersion either upon his honour and sincerity or upon his deep sense of responsibility, something which no one in the House could possibly mistake.
I shall explain how this misconceived policy arose and of what it consists, because the beginning of salvation is to analyse our danger. I am indebted to the former permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, Sir Kenneth Stowe, for a most important indication of its nature. When I asked him—it must have been early in 1981—to account for the continual series of political intiatives in Northern Ireland, all of which were predictably flawed and predictably doomed to disappointment and collapse, and to say how it was possible not merely for Ministers to follow through such a series but to be advised that they could do so, he answered me—and it came like a flash of lightning—"It all stems from a meeting in October 1979. At that meeting were laid down the lines of everything which has followed since." The meeting to which he referred was the last of a series of meetings which began, or were initiated, immediately after the murder of Lord Mountbatten.
I have in my hands a copy of The Guardian of 31 August 1979. One article began:
The Irish Prime Minister, Mr. … Lynch, will meet Mrs. Thatcher next week to review security policy in Ireland";
but it continued that Mr. Lynch
hopes to broaden the agenda for the prime ministerial meeting to include the possibility of a British political initiative in Northern Ireland.
When he was asked at a press conference whether he thought that a murder would postpone a British initiative—the report is on the same page—he replied:
I should imagine that, rather than postpone it, it may well be accelerated.
It so happened—accidents happen, and I am content to believe that this was an accident — that the communiqué of the meeting on 5 October 1979, which was the culmination and crystallisation of what had flowed between the officials — and, no doubt, between the Ministers—of the two Governments from the time of Mountbatten's murder, was never placed in the Library nor published in full in the press. I am content to believe


that that was one of those accidents; but the communiqué was not available until last year, when the Prime Minister instructed that it be placed in the Library. Accompanying it, in the terms of the written answer, was her statement that it was the communiqué of a meeting held on 5 October 
in the aftermath of the murder of Mountbatten.
I must trouble the House with a sentence or two from the crucial and significant paragraph of that communiqué. It runs as follows:
The Ministers also discussed the prospects for political progress in Northern Ireland.
Those who know the code language know the meaning of the term "political progress". The communiqué continues:
They noted that the Secretary of State"—
that is, the predecessor of the present Secretary of State—
was engaged in continuing private talks with political leaders in Northern Ireland, and that in the light of these, the British Government hoped before long to be in a position to put forward positive proposals for political development.
This sentence follows:
The Irish Ministers emphasised the importance of an early initiative leading to acceptable political institutions which both sections of the community in Northern Ireland could support and sustain.
That then was the communiqué at the end of a series of meetings about security and what assistance could be expected from the Irish Republic in the context of security, following the horrific events of 27 August 1979—the murder not only of Mountbatten, but of 18 soldiers—committed either in or from the territory of the Republic.
At that point began the sequence of political initiatives that have occupied the years in between. Those years were also punctuated by a series of outrages which did not bear the ordinary hallmark of the historic campaign of the IRA against the forces of the Crown, but which had a peculiarly personal and pointed significance — like the murder yesterday of Edgar Graham, which is the last in that series—and stand out like figures in the dark when we look back over those years.
The Minister of State did not catch my drift yesterday when I asked him in a supplementary question what message that murder was intended to convey and to whom the message was addressed. I shall answer my question now. The message was addressed to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and it ran as follows: no turning back now, carry on. Again using the words of the communiqué, the message was to
emphasise the importance of an early initiative"—
or, if the Government might not call it an "initiative", of carrying on along the route that had been laid down.
Since 1979 we have been on a ratchet, whereby outrage has repeatedly been applied as an argument by the Irish Republic to the Government. The Irish Republic says, "Of course you need our co-operation, for the terror comes from our own territory. Well, here are the conditions on which you can have our co-operation."

Mr. Hume: The right hon. Gentleman keeps on making the point that the terror comes from the Republic of Ireland. He has produced no evidence of that charge. All the evidence available suggests that 97 per cent. of those convicted of terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland come from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Powell: That is not inconsistent with anything that I have said. Those who commit these deeds are, in the great majority of cases, people born in Ulster. That is

right, but it is in no way in conflict with the statement that these deeds would not and could not be committed if there were not in adjacent territory a base from which they could be committed.

Mr. Hume: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Powell: By all means, but before the hon. Gentleman intervenes I should like to say how glad I am that he is in his rightful place in the House, where he can put questions and receive answers.

Mr. Hume: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Do not the figures of conviction suggest that there must also be substantial bases in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Powell: I am willing to rest upon the phenomena of the outrages that will be present to the minds of the House, the outrages experienced in the past six or nine months, and ask how few of those outrages were practicable or had any meaning, apart from the possibility of transit with weapons and resources from the Republic into Northern Ireland.
Another branch of the Dundalk trail passes through my constituency. The hon. Gentleman can say that those who actually fire the fatal shot live in certain places—I shall not name them; the hon. Gentleman knows them, as I do —nevertheless, it is the line of communication and the base from which the operation is nurtured.
So for all these years we have been upon a ratchet. A continuation of violence has seemed to the Government to force them more irrevocably into the political stance that they have taken up. Until almost the most recent past the Prime Minister, with reference to her periodic meetings with her opposite numbers in the Republic, would appeal to us and say, "Do we not need the friendship of the Irish Republic?" I desire that we should be at peace with all other nations; but it is not only we who have been placed upon a ratchet in the past four years. The Government of the Irish Republic have also been placed upon that ratchet. The interlocking between the policy of Her Majesty's Government and the situation of the Irish Republic has imprisoned the Irish Republic and its Government in a similar nightmarish progression to our own. It is necessary to escape from it if we are ever to bring an end to the story that we are contemplating tonight.
What we have to say to the Irish Republic, and the only words that will free it from its predicament, as well as ourselves, is, "Make no mistake. Nothing will alter the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Misunderstand nothing that we do. Misunderstand no word or action of ours. Understand that for this generation, for the next generation, for the foreseeable future, the United Kingdom will be as the United Kingdom is now. Do not therefore imagine that you are set upon a course that offers you political prizes to be secured for you—no doubt involuntarily and regrettably—by the repeated influence and impact of a terrorism based upon your territory. Understand only that that will get us both deeper into the darkness. The United Kingdom will not be broken, and the place of Ulster in the United Kingdom will not be broken. We shall henceforth do nothing that can even be misunderstood as expressing a desire on our part to cooperate in what is the political objective of the Irish state."
That might seem to be a recommendation or a recipe for more conflict. There lies the misunderstanding. It is the only way in which the series can be broken, the only way


in which we can escape from the sickening iteration of blackmail which began with the death of Airey Neave—an hon. Member of the House. He is also in the series, and very clear was the effect of his murder upon the policies of the Government.
We who sit here are duty bound to declare what we believe should be the policy that Her Majesty's Government should pursue. I have done so.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I address the House at a time when everyone is especially aware of the scourge of terrorism which is afflicting our beleagured Province. The foul murder of my friend and colleague Edgar Graham yesterday clearly illustrates that fact. Several hon. Members have spoken about Edgar Graham. I support fully what has been said and offer condolences and sympathy to his family.
The security aspect in my constituency has had a traumatic effect on my constituents. We have had our share of the troubles which have beset the Province in the past 14 years. As a result of the bombings, murders and numerous arson attempts my constituency has become the most deprived area in Northern Ireland.
I have listened to the Secretary of State referring to an acceptable level of violence— [Interruption.] —I was referring to the context in which the right hon. Gentleman made the remark. I believe that Ulster is being asked to accept an acceptable level of violence as part of our daily existence. Would it be acceptable for the constituents of hon. Members to be brutally murdered while attending their religious Sunday service or blown to pieces while having a quiet drink with their friends or for young children to see their mother widowed by the bomb attached to their father's car?
The house has recently discussed the effect of video nasties on our population. Although I agree that that is a worthwhile exercise in the protection of our young people, I respectfully say that Ulster has real life situations which make some of the contents of the video tapes seem tame by comparison.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who was the Labour Government's Northern Ireland Minister, was well respected for his dedication to the job. When we last debated this matter, he stressed that the achievement of peace in Northern Ireland involved not only the people of the province but those of Great Britain and the Irish Republic, but to be realistic in that belief necessitates full co-operation in order to defeat the efforts of those who are opposed to a peaceful solution of the problem.
The Dublin Government are not subscribing all that they should in order to destroy the terrorist cells that undoubtedly exist in the 26 counties. In the 1956 to 1962 IRA campaign, the Dublin Government were very quick to act to intern all those suspected of terrorist activities and that, in conjunction with the general co-operation of the forces of law and order on both sides of the border, effectively isolated the majority of the population in Northern Ireland from the hideous acts of violence which were being planned for them. There is evidence—and I noticed it in the newspaper the other day — that the Garda in the Republic are now becoming concerned. However, I would point out that the fiasco of police officers losing their uniforms to Ireland's most wanted

terrorist gives scant confidence about their ability adequately to police their country, particularly in the border area.
One of the issues that looms large over Northern Ireland is the commitment of Opposition parties to a united Ireland on the basis of consent. Time and again it has been shown at the ballot box that such consent will not be forthcoming. Such a policy feeds Loyalist fears and encourages those who would seek to hasten the objective by the bomb and the bullet.
I pay tribute to the forces of law and order in the province. I have the greatest respect and admiration for our army, which performs an extremely difficult task in an extremely difficult situation. The RUC has now been restructured and, we hope, rejuvenated, and is trusted by everyone to do its job impartially. However, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, many of us in Northern Ireland are not happy about the Chief Constable and the role that he has played. There is a lot of dissension in the force's rank and file, as I think the hon. Gentleman pointed out. I am sure from what my constituents say that that dissension exists, and something should be done about it.
I utterly condemn the recent criticism of our Ulster Defence Regiment, and wholeheartedly support its role in the Province. I see the recent irresponsible statements from pro-Republican elements as the beginning of a campaign to destroy a legitimate and deeply respected local defence force. No one can condone the actions of misguided people in any organisation, but that does not, by any stretch of the imagination, allow for a general condemnation of the total force. I hope that the House will recognise those accusations for what they are and whence they come.
The thoughts of many of the members of the UDR were summed up recently. An officer was reported in one of our local newspapers as saying:
The Ulster contribution in almost every war that Great Britain has fought has been massive.
He went on to say that if he and his colleagues could address the Prime Minister, they would tell her:
We have given our dead for safekeeping—they are not sleeping and never will they until you put right the many injustices and show the resolution we know you possess and you must also take decisive action to end the agonies of this battered Province.
In making my first speech to the House I find myself, through the support of my constituents, in a new and completely different political sphere—a sphere in which I take great pride. I trust that during my time in the House I will do all that I can to uphold the dignity of this revered institution and to represent all the people of Belfast, North to the best of my ability.
I am reading a very interesting book by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). It is giving me much advice on certain matters, and much pleasure, but one of the most enlightening things that I have read in it is that most Members of Parliament are just ordinary human beings like myself. That makes me feel much better. I am sure that I will eventually be able to adjust to my new life in the House of Commons.
In view of the complexity of the many and varied problems that face the Province of Ulster, I am concerned about the fact that the Government have seemed to double up on some of the portfolios for which Ministers are responsible. I have the greatest admiration and respect for our new Ministers, who have shown a dedicated interest in their various Departments, and for the tremenclous


energy that they devote to their seemingly endless workload. Their enthusiasm should be acknowledged. However, concentrated effort applied continually can impair the most efficient people to the detriment of the cause that they espouse.
I wish to pay a sincere compliment to my predecessor, John McQuade—Johnny McQuade, as he is known in north Belfast. He and I were both born and reared in north Belfast and we share the same concern for its problems. He confided to me a long time ago his ambition to be a Member of the Mother of Parliaments. I was his opponent in the election that brought him here, but I did not begrudge him that honour, and I wish him every health and happiness in his retirement from mainstream politics.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: This is a sombre debate in which to make a maiden speech. I have the privilege of complimenting the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) on acquitting himself so well tonight. The hon. Gentleman told us that he has lost a friend in Edgar Graham. Unionism, Ulster and the United Kingdom have lost a fine man who would have done great things for us all.
As is right on these occasions, the hon. Gentleman referred to his predecessor. We, too, miss Johnny McQuade, who was a gallant soldier and a man of the people, in the best sense of those words.
The hon. Gentleman spoke with fluency, clarity and a spice of humour. I still tremble when I rise to address the House, but the hon. Gentleman spoke with such assurance that I was surprised when he referred to entering a new sphere and embarking on a new life. He might have been here all his life. We shall listen to his counsel with interest at all times. The people of north Belfast are fortunate in their Member.
I support the renewal of the emergency powers pending Sir George Baker's report. When the report is received and discussed in the House, we will examine the emergency powers with the greatest care to see in what way they should be changed, reduced or, it might be, added to in the interest of law and order and the liberty of the subject. Let no hon. Gentleman think that those of us on this side care less about the liberties of the subject and regret any less than they the inroads that have been made upon them as a result of terrorism.
Even the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), despite his exchange with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), will agree that the frontier is important in the defeat of terrorism and that co-operation from the Republic is vital. That was the burden of my question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier today. There was one part of my question to which my right hon. Friend's reply was, I thought incomplete. That was when I said that there might have been a diminution in the co-operation between the security forces on the two sides of the border. I referred to the relations between the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. When I read press reports that the Baldonnel panels of superintendents from the two forces are being revived, does that suggest that there has been a lessening of co-operation, whether or not as a result of the McGovan affair which has thrown a certain shadow over the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
It would clear the air if the Minister would say something about that matter when he replies, because it is not healthy or happy that such reflections should be cast in this Chamber upon Sir John Hermon and that there should not be a proper reply. We want to know whether good relations now obtain between the Chief Constable and Mr. Wren, the Commissioner in Dublin, because it is important.
I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the security forces will be given all the resources that they may need. It was not always so. I can remember the days when the police would compare some of their equipment unfavourably with that possessed by the Army. In recent years the equipment and the armament of which the Royal Ulster Constabulary was foolishly deprived by an earlier Labour Administration have been improved and restored.
On a point of detail, I wonder whether I might refer to a question that I asked on 28 March? It involves the constituency of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), although it was a different and less worthy Member who was then returned. I can only say that he was "returned" for that constituency. My question related to the training centre of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other units at Enniskillen. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland replied on 28 March and said that a review of the facilities for training and operational purposes at Enniskillen was taking place and that any question about the accommodation of the force would have to wait until the review was complete. I wonder whether we shall receive that review before too long.
I appreciate the tribute that my right hon. Friend paid to Northern Ireland Members. I understand the chagrin he felt when the Province's political leaders declined his unprecedented invitation to meet him, the General Officer Commanding, and the Chief Constable. I can also understand their objections to doing so. Unionists feel that it is difficult to discuss security with representatives of the SDLP, whose support for the security services has been equivocal, to say the least. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Foyle speak about that, and it was a welcome step forward, yet security is a matter for Ministers, who are responsible to the House. The Secretary of State thinks that it is wrong of the SDLP not to join the Assembly. Apart from the estimable Roman Catholics of the Alliance party of Northern Ireland it is, to adapt a phrase, a Protestant Assembly for a Protestant people, and that is one of its weaknesses.
To leave aside the Assembly—I try to forget about it —I sincerely welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Foyle. The SDLP does not sit in the Assembly, but it sits in the House of Commons, where the nationalist view can be represented, and where Unionists and Nationalists can sit together and give their views on behalf of their constituents. In this sovereign Parliament—both Houses of it—partisan tension can be relaxed and causes of dissension, which loom large in the narrow heated space of a province that is the size of a large county, can be brought down to size.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that in this House there is a chance in an election for a minority to become a majority, but that in Northern Ireland, due to the tribal, communalist voting, it is impossible for the minority to become the majority? Is not


that the fundamental reason why the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) sits in this House but not in the Assembly?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: When Ireland was partitioned, a Loyalist community—then substantial, since diminished— remained in what was then the Irish free state and is now the Irish Republic, but those people would have preferred to remain in the United Kingdom. They could not do so, and there was no prospect of them sharing power with those who supported independence from Britain. They had to and did make the best of it. Would that that had been the case with the minority in Northern Ireland.
In Great Britain, there is no prospect for the Scottish or Welsh nationalists to share power. I understand the feelings of nationalists in Northern Ireland, but the will of the people of Northern Ireland is to remain part of the United Kingdom. That includes nearly every Protestant and something under half of the Roman Catholic population. Those are the figures quoted by various opinion polls. I understand how frustrating that is for the nationalists. What can we do about it? We must work as closely as we can with the Irish Republic and form the closest possible association with it, but on the basis of the enduring union, which is the democratic will of the people.
I end by quoting the words of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) from the Opposition Front Bench: "The policy of the Tory party … leads towards a united Ireland." When I heard those words, I thought that either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary of State, would leap to his feet to refute that assertion, but there was no reaction. Then I said to myself, "There will be a stern rebuttal when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate." If it could be said seriously by any hon. Member that the policy of the Conservative party leans towards a united Ireland, those words would be music in the ears of the IRA and the INLA. [AN HON. MEMBER: "They are not true anyway."] They are not true, and it is an illusion of the terrorists that they can get their way. Until we convince them that they cannot get their way, and until they know beyond peradventure that Northern Ireland will be governed as any other part of this kingdom is governed, my right hon. Friend's sincere wish to win will not be fulfilled.

Mr. Soley: rose——

Sir John Biggs-Davison: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may wish to intervene before I sit down.

Mr. Soley: rose——

Sir John Biggs-Davison: We must convince them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] These are serious words. We must convince them, because it is a matter of life or death.

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. If I rose to refute everything with which I disagreed in this debate, it would have become a little mixed up.
Since my hon. Friend has raised this matter, may I say that the greatest thing that could happen for Northern Ireland would be for the Government of the Republic and nationalist traditions in Northern Ireland to recognise that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for—to use the words of the right hon. Member for

Down, South (Mr. Powell) — the foreseeable future. That guarantee could be given. At the same time, it would be open to all the people of Northern Ireland, and especially the nationalist community there, to seek arrangements which recognise their special position. That would be especially just in a society that has had a majority and a minority implanted into it for far too long. That is how I believe we shall make some progress.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the Secretary of State was intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). Mr. John Hume.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I thought that the hon. Member for Epping Forest had only given way to the Secretary of State.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I had hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have prefaced his remarks with the words, "Before my hon. Friend sits down." I am sorry if I confused the House.

Mr. John Hume: The subject of the debate is the renewal of the order under the Emergency Provisions Act, although it is not surprising that the atmosphere of recent weeks, especially yesterday, has dominated the debate so far. I join my colleagues from Northern Ireland and, I presume, all hon. Members, in condemning the brutal murder yesterday of the Official Unionist Assembly man Edgar Graham. As I said yesterday, it was not just an attack on Edgar Graham; it was an attack on the democratic process, and a direct attack on the Unionist people whom Mr. Graham represented. It was a clear, cold, calculated effort to stir up outright sectarian confrontation and to create chaos from which those same paramilitaries would emerge as the alleged protectors of their people. I extend my sympathy to Mr. Graham's colleagues in the Official Unionist party.
People wonder why things like that happen in Northern Ireland—a place where both sections of the community are deeply committed to Christian religious beliefs. People wonder why in a small community of 1,500,000 people almost 2,500 have lost their lives in the past 14 years because of acts of violence committed by different paramilitary organisations. The victims have been drawn almost equally from both sections of our divided community.
It is in answering the question as to why it happens that big divisions emerge between myself and the other hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have spoken in the debate. They will argue, as they have argued forcefully this evening, and as they have argued often in the House, that the problem is basically one of security to be solved by security methods. I question deeply that analysis.
The rule of law in any democratic society must be based on political consensus within that society, particularly if it is a deeply divided society. That is true of Britain, of the Republic of Ireland and of most democratic countries anywhere in the world. It is the absence of that consensus that is the Achilles heel consistently exploited by violent and terrorist organisations. Only when that consensus is created will there be strong support for the institutions of a state that are required to defeat paramilitary violence. That is self-evident.
In 1973 a broad strategy to bring about that consensus was adopted by the Government here. It fell into broadly three areas — the criminalisation of paramilitary organisations, the Ulsterisation of the security forces and a major political effort to accommodate the two identities within Northern Ireland and to recognise for the first time the identity of the minority. That major political effort resulted in the Sunningdale agreement, which did not last very long. The only parts of the strategy which remain are those which refer to the criminalisation of the paramilitaries and the Ulsterisation of the security forces. A major part of the strategy is the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976.
In paragraph 13 of the White Paper which was published last year the Government again stated that there must be
reasonable and appropriate arrangements to take account of the interests of the minority which are acceptable to both sides of the community.
That seemed to be a reasonable statement, but let us examine the phrase
to take account of the interests of the minority which are acceptable to both sides of the community".
It is to be presumed that if proposals are to be brought forward which will take account of the interests of the minority they will be acceptable to the minority, but they have to be acceptable to both sides of the community. Therefore, what is acceptable to or in the interests of the minority is subject to a veto of the Loyalist community in Northern Ireland. It is not enough for that community to have a veto on constitutional change; it must also have a veto on whatever form of government is set up for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. That means, and has meant, that every initiative taken by successive British Governments since 1973 has not succeeded, and that includes those of the present Secretary of State. As a result, the Government's role has been reduced to containing violence through the military, the police and the judicial system, to continue a political structure which on their own admission alienates a large section of the population.
An essential instrument of that system containing violence is the order and the Act that we are discussing. I would argue that its provisions make nonsense of the Government's overall strategy. I shall quickly go through some of its elements. There are powers of arrest that do not demand the prerequisite of reasonable suspicion against the person arrested. The person arrested is not protected by any legally enforceable code of interrogation. Confessions are admissible as long as they are obtained by any means other than torture or inhumanely degrading treatment.
Despite all this, only 12 per cent. of those arrested under the provisions have ever been brought to trial. Between 1977 and 1982, 22,378 such people were arrested under the provisions. If the same figures were available —they are not—for the rate of arrests for the whole period of the operation of the Act, we should be talking about 55,000 people who have been arrested in Northern Ireland under these provisions, of whom only 12 per cent. were charged. One must draw the conclusion that the legislation is being used for more than arresting people involved in violent crime. It is being used for intelligence gathering and harassment.
The figure of 55,000 people is equivalent to 1·5 million people being arrested in Britain, and if one combines that with an ethnic grouping in Britain or a particular section of the community, or particular urban geographical areas that are already deprived, one gets an impression of how the alienation process takes place, particularly when one confines it further within the population to those under 30 years of age.
When the suspect is charged, if he is, he arrives in a court in which there is only one judge and no jury and he may face evidence from an accomplice that is uncorroborated. That accomplice will get immunity for serious crimes including murder, and will receive large sums of money to send him off to the sunshine in another country. I could go on, but I shall not.
People wonder why there has been support at the ballot box for organisations involved in violence. I stress that the Government say that they are pursuing a policy of accommodating the two traditions in Northern Ireland to create a political consensus that must be the basis of order, and to prevent the alienation of the minority community. In fact, because of the veto that they gave to one section of the community in Northern Ireland, the Government are reduced to containing violence by means which themselves increase the political problem by increasing alienation.
Two factors go to the heart of the deadlock in Northern Ireland which have always been there and which result directly from a decision taken in this Parliament many years ago. The two factors are the unwillingness of the Unionist community to agree to any changes that would give any role whatsoever to the minority community in Northern Ireland, described by myself among others as the intransigence of the Unionist community. The second factor is the lack of faith among a section of the minority in the democratic process as it applies to the British democratic process and support for violence. Those two factors feed upon one another all the time.
Both those factors originate in the failure of this Parliament in the past to uphold the basis of the rule of law that is the sovereignty of this Parliament. This goes back as far as 1912. The decision of that Parliament in 1912 was to vote for home rule for Ireland, which was devolution within the United Kingdom—it was not independence for Ireland but devolution—and the Official Unionists of that day stood up and said, "We will fight rather than accept this democratic decision." That Parliament caved in to the blackmail and the rule of law has never since obtained in Ireland. The net result was to teach Unionists that if they threatened they would succeed. The message to the Nationalist community was that the democratic process, even when one wins, does not work and it is much better to use a gun. Those two attitudes go to the heart of the problem.
Those attitudes were reinforced in 1974. Precisely the same thing happened in the House when an initiative was brought forward by the Conservative Government. It was hailed as a real means of accommodating the true Irish traditions, again reinforced and brought down by the same methods and again reinforcing the attitude of those who say, "Forget about your democratic process, it gets you nowhere in the end".
We cannot survive those attitudes. It is clear that what is happening in our streets today means that we will not survive if the murder that is loose there is not brought under control and if we do not go to the heart of the


problem. It means that if any lesson is to be learnt from all that is going on, the lesson must be failure, failure of the attitudes represented by the right hon. and hon. Gentleman in the House in the Unionist tradition, failure in the attitudes represented by the tradition I represent, and failure in the attitudes represented by the Government. There has to be a re-examination of our traditional approaches if we are to get anywhere.
What the Unionist community tell us is that they are the only means of protecting the Protestant ethos within Ireland. That is their position. They have always held that position throughout our history. I do not quarrel with the desire to keep and protect the distinctiveness of that tradition within Ireland because any country is richer for diversity. I quarrel with the method that has been used consistently, or sought to be used, which is to hold all power in their own hands, themselves alone—the other side of the coin, the exclusive use of power. That is a violent attitude in any democratic society.
My own tradition that has had handed down to it a rather romantic notion of Irishness has confined its notion of Irishness to the Gaelic and Catholic strands of Irishness to the exclusion of the Protestant tradition. One extreme of that tradition thinks that it is right not only to die for it but to kill for it, that it is patriotic to spill blood. There has to be a complete re-examination of that attitude to show that we can create an Ireland that can accommodate both traditions and do it with the agreement of both traditions and create a new vision of Irish patriotism that is the spilling of sweat and not the spilling blood.
For that to come about, let us not forget that the warring Irish who sit here and who are berated from time to time, perhaps justifiably, by Secretaries of State have no power at all. We exercise no executive power. All power resides in the Government here, and there needs to be a re-examination of attitudes here.
How dare anybody, Prime Minister or otherwise, tell me that we are as British as Finchley and that we are an integral part of the United Kingdom when one of the gravest crises in any part of the United Kingdom is going on in this House and when debates on Northern Ireland in the House take place usually in the small hours of the night with very few hon. Members present?
There is no commitment in that sort of attitude. Nor is there a commitment in a simplistic notion, restated by the Secretary of State, of what looks like a democratic guarantee to a section of the Northern Ireland population. Everyone knows that Northern Ireland was created on the basis of a religious head count, yet the majority is told, "Your majority is the basis of your protection." That is forcing that majority into sectarian solidarity, and any group of people in the same situation would do the same. That sectarian solidarity prevents the dialogue that the Secretary of State and we all desperately need if we are to solve our problem.
The end result cannot be victory for any section of the people of Ireland. Victory is not a solution. The end result must be an accommodation, but that can be obtained only if we all commit ourselves to saying, "Let us begin the exercise and agree before we start that what we are seeking is agreement, not victory."

Mr. Peter Robinson: Before coming to the subject matter of the debate I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) on a fine

maiden speech. Like the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), I noticed the confidence with which he spoke. Perhaps Belfast city council is a good training ground. It was the training ground of his predecessor, and I thank him on behalf of my hon. Friends for the kind remarks that he made about Johnnie McQuade, the warrior from Belfast, North who was a colourful character both inside and outside the House.
I will not be deflected from the main purpose of the debate by answering the substance of the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). Suffice it to say that he refuses to accept reality. The reality in Northern Ireland is that the vast majority of the pople there wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. He cannot talk that reality out of existence. It is there and he will have to accept it.
The hon. Member for Foyle turns the pages of history and when he reaches the early part of this century he tells us that there was a head count which, on a religious basis, set up the state of Northern Ireland. The people of his and my tradition in those days accepted the boundaries of that state, and those then in this House voted in favour of those boundaries, as did those of his tradition in the Dail in Dublin and those of my tradition in the first Stormont Parliament. It was agreed by all of those parties, and in the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations, a solemn document was signed agreeing to those boundaries. But the hon. Member for Foyle wants to throw away the pages of history and not accept the reality that Northern Ireland is British and that therefore the vast majority of its people should, by any democratic process, have their way.
The hon. Member for Foyle may not like that situation, but it is a reality, however unpalatable it may be to him. Until he accepts it — and until those of his tradition accept it—the rest of us, the vast majority, will not be able to sleep in our beds at night in safety. It is a sad fact that there are those of his tradition who are prepared to spill blood, and he said that.
I wish to make it clear that the ritual that we go through in the House every six months of renewing this measure is an indictment of the Government. The very fact that we must renew it is a signal that they have failed. The House does well to remind itself of the statistics of violence in Northern Ireland, up to midnight last night—none of us knows what is happening in the Province now — the number of people killed there included 124 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 67 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, 371 members of the British Army and 136 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, as well as 1,642 civilians, making a total of 2,340. As well as those deaths, the number of injured were: 4,572 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; 3,896 members of the Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment; and 17,564 civilians; giving a total of 26,032 people.
If those statistics do not make an imprint on the minds of hon. Members, let me put them into perspective in United Kingdom terms so that they might know the impact of those deaths and injuries on the people of Northern Ireland. On the basis that there are almost 1·5 million people in Northern Ireland and on the basis that there are almost 56 million people in the United Kingdom, by United Kingdom standards, on the same proportion and on the same ratio of deaths and injuries in Northern Ireland, 87,000 people would have been murdered in the campaign of violence and 1 million people would have been maimed


and mutilated. If that campaign had been taking place in the whole of the United Kingdom, I wonder whether right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would be looking over their shoulders with concern when Northern Ireland Members raised their voices and appeared to be emotional on the issues which affect their constituents. I would imagine that from every corner of the House there would be a demand for the head of the Secretary of State whose policy had failed to the extent that the Secretary of State's policy on security has failed.
Those are the statistics, but statistics are in many ways meaningless. The Secretary of State has told us over the past few months that there has been an improvement in security, that the statistics for this year are slightly better than the statistics for 1982. Perhaps he did not make his judgment from what has been taking place in the past few days, for the facts do not bear that out. My statistics, from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, show that the number of RUC men killed is up on 1982; that the number of RUC reservists killed is up on 1982; that the number of Army deaths, granted, is down— it is down to five in the present year—but that the number of UDR deaths has increased this year; and the number of civilian deaths, should the present trend continue, will probably end up the same as in the past year. If the statistics over the past few weeks were to continue for the whole of the month of December—the highest number of killings in Northern Ireland in 1982 took place in December—we would have the worst statistics for violence in Northern Ireland since 1976—hardly anything to be patting ourselves on the back about and hardly an indicator that things in Northern Ireland are getting better.
I join right hon. and hon. Members who have paid tribute to the work that was carried out by the late Edgar Graham. I watched him closely in the Northern Ireland Assembly and I think that anyone who watched his performances in the Northern Ireland Assembly could see the ability of that young man. I express my sympathy to his family circle and to his colleagues who have lost a promising politician.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who, unfortunately, is not in the Chamber at present, posed for the second time a question that he asked to the Minister of State yesterday following the statement in which the Minister of State announced to the House the murder of Edgar Graham. The right hon. Gentleman said:
May I also ask the Government what message they believe that those who ordered the murder intended to transmit and to whom that message was addressed?" — [Official Report, 7 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 340.]
The right hon. Gentleman sought to answer his own question. He produced a complex argument in developing what he thought the message was that the murderers were intending to transmit. He alleged that the Minister of State did not follow his drift when he put his question to him yesterday.
I listened to the right hon. Gentleman especially carefully today so that I would not lose his argument. I can go along with a great deal of the right hon. Gentleman's complex argument, but I am not convinced that the man who pulled the trigger, or the men who sent him out, had that complex argument at the back of their minds. I think that the message that they wished to transmit and those to whom they wished to transmit it is much more clearly

understood than the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The message was aimed clearly at the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and it was simple. It ran as follows: "You have come out of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the basis of security and we shall ensure that you cannot go back." That was the IRA's message.

Mr. William Ross: Does not the hon. Gentleman yet understand that neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) nor anyone else on the Unionist Bench has ever alleged that the man who pulls the trigger has to know the complex reasons behind his pulling of the trigger.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is confused.

Mr. Ross: No, I am not confused.

Mr. Robinson: I talked of the man who pulled the trigger and of the man or men who sent him out. Inasmuch as any of those who carry out the violence or those who send them out know why they commit such acts, other than hatred and a wish to put down Loyalists and those who stand for the British connection, it is clear that an organisation which went to the Assembly to smash Stormont can ascertain that its goal can be attained by murder. It is surely clear to the hon. Gentleman that it can attain its goal and have success through such murders. That is more clearly the message than the complex argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Is the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) suggesting or implying that the Provisional IRA, or perhaps the INLA, having sought in 1971 to bomb and shoot the Unionist party out of Stormont, is now, at the end of 1983, trying to shoot the Official Unionist party into the Assembly?

Mr. Robinson: The Irish Republican Army and its fellow travellers in the INLA are the enemies of democracy. They want to pull down every democratic institution that stands between them and their goal. That is clearly their aim. They stated in their election manifestos that their intention was to smash Stormont. Immediately the election was concluded, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) who does not come to the House—he is the leader of the Provisional Sinn Fein movement and I can hardly bring myself to call him an "honourable" Member—made it clear that the Northern Ireland Assembly was a legitimate target. He and his supporters worked for a year to bring it down. It was clear that their actions were designed to achieve that goal.
I must tell the Secretary of State that the situation has not improved over the past 13 years. The basis on which to make a real comparison is not one of statistics, even though we are told that this year could probably be the worst for terrorism since 1976. The basis on which to make a real comparison is to assess the potential of the Provisional IRA to cause death and destruction. Its capability to cause death and destruction—the House may not like to hear this—is greater today than it has been in any other period during the present campaign. It is no use fudging the issue or trying to pretend the IRA out of existence. It is a fact.
What are the essentials for any terrorist organisation? The first is manpower. The provisional IRA still has young recruits coming out of school. The godfather of terrorism


has never been put away. The IRA are now getting hardline belligerent republicans, who, when the troubles started, were first out on the street. Those people are starting to come out of gaol to augment the organisation and to pass on their experience to the young recruits.
The second essential of a terrorist organisation is expertise. Long Kesh is very much the Sandhurst of the IRA. That is where IRA men gain their training and expertise. At the Maze prison museum there are books, assembly devices, arms and ammunition—an arsenal of equipment that has been found. The training of the people who are brought to Maze prison continues in that prison so that as soon as they get out they can pass on their expertise to people in the IRA.
The third essential of a terrorist organisation is finance. Those who have been to the United States of America will have seen from where substantial sums of money are coming, including organisations such as NORAID and the American Ancient Order of Hibernians. Funds come not only from the gifts of misled Americans but from building contractors, bank robbers, racketeering and other dubious enterprises in Northern Ireland. The organisation's finances are greater today than they have ever been.
If finance is available, weaponry will be available as well, and that is the fourth essential of terrorism. The IRA has not only a ready supply of armalites and other weapons that come from the so-called free world but the Kalashnikov assault rifle. The IRA can obtain its explosives from Bulgaria and from ready and willing Governments, including Libya. It can obtain expertise from other international terrorist organisations.
Just the other day, we talked to an Israeli Member of Parliament who made it clear that the IRA had been present in Lebanon when training was being given. The IRA's weaponry, expertise, finance and manpower is greater today than it has ever been.
I can give two more essentials of terrorism. The first is the support for the organisation. Whether or not we like the idea, we must admit that polls have shown that support for Sinn Fein has not diminished but increased. If support is available to Sinn Fein the IRA will resolve to continue.
Why should the IRA, believing in its principles, give up at this stage? The IRA believes, as firmly as any other terrorist organisation in such circumstances, that it can make the British Government do things under threat that they would never do by persuasion or argument. That is the essential on which any terrorist organisation feeds. The IRA believes that by terrorism it can force the hands of the British Government.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): indicated dissent.

Mr. Robinson: The Minister need not shake his head. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland can recall that the B Special was taken away because of the pressure from organisations such as the IRA. the Royal Ulster Constabulary was reorganised and our Parliament was taken away. Even our electoral system was changed—again to appease those in our society who were rebellious. Every type of change was made to try to appease and make a compromise with such people. Changes are made under threat and it would be wrong for the Minister to deny that fact.
This renewal order must be made because violence is still very much a reality in Northern Ireland. Violence is

continuing because of the failure of this Government and previous Governments. The Government are failing because their policy is wrong. Our policy is one of reaction. We wait until the IRA hits and we then decide how to respond. Alternatively, through intelligence, or intelligent assumptions, we try to assume who the IRA's next target might be or what it might attack next. We try to provide protection for that thing or person. Loyalists and public representatives are under threat. Therefore, we have to think of giving them further protection. By doing so, we take away men who should be protecting something else. If we run a security policy on the basis of trying to think what target may be next — there are so many targets that they cannot all be covered—we are on the wrong policy. The only policy against terrorism that can work is one in which we go ruthlessly on to the offensive.
The Secretary of State tells us that his policy is not one of containment. He is right. He is not containing anything. Nothing is being contained. Violence is continuing unabated and the IRA grows in strength. The IRA can be beaten, but it can be beaten only with a change of policy. The Secretary of State says that many tell us that the policy is wrong, but they do not say how it should be changed. He should know, for we have told him often enough, what changes he should make. Some of them have been mentioned in the debate. The first essential is that the Secretary of State, in his security policy, has the moral resolution to win. I listened carefully to him today. On few other occasions has he been so tough as he was today. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) rightly says that words are fine, but action is what people are looking for. There was a hint of resolution in the Secretary of State's words, but moral resolution or what we in Northern Ireland call the guts to govern is what is needed. Terrorism is based on the belief that terrorists can threaten or push the Government to do things that otherwise they would not do.
Having established that the moral resolution to win is there, we need changes in operational policy. The border has been mentioned by many Members. Whether we want to consider other matters or not, it is the essential in the security situation. It represents the lines of supply for the bases set up in Northern Ireland. It represents the routes through which those based in the Irish Republic come. The border is difficult to secure. I do not know whether any border can be totally secure. I do not say that the task is easy, but in other countries difficult borders, some perhaps more difficult than the one in Northern Ireland, have been made tight against terrorist infiltration. The Minister must know that there are too many roads from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland for effective security. There must be a reduction in the number of roads crossing our border.
The Secretary of State should inform the Chief Constable—unfortunately, we cannot inform him—that the B Specials had an effective border sealing operation on the road junctions. Whatever road one takes to get from the Republic to Northern Ireland, at some stage one must go through key junctions. The B Specials operated checkpoints at those junctions. If the Secretary of State has only a minimal number of cross-border roads, more effective security on the roads that are open and proper patrols further back, he will find that, with additional bases along the border, he can more easily dominate it. If it is not 100 per cent. secure, it will be more secure than


it is today, when one can walk freely from one side to the other without seeing a member of our security forces. The border is undoubtedly a major aspect.
Terrorists plan, plot and launch their operations on many occasions from within Northern Ireland. The security forces are aware of the existence of the IRA in certain areas. The only policy for such areas is proper search and seizure operations. Operations of that type have taken place in Northern Ireland and have been successful. Unless that type of operation is increased, the IRA will be able to sleep peacefully in the knowledge that it will be undisturbed. It can plot and plan its operations in the knowledge that the security forces will not arrive at its door.
If hon. Members examine the statistics of finds by the security forces, they will realise that there has been a steady reduction in the tonnage of explosives found. In 1981, 3.4 explosive tonnes were found, in 1982 the figure was 2.26 tonnes, and the 1983 figure is 1.86 tonnes. In 1981, 398 firearms were found, in 1982 the figure was 282 and the 1983 figure is 149.
In 1981, 47,070 rounds of ammunition were found, in 1982 the figure was 41,453, and the 1983 figure is 33,777. Finds of rockets and rocket launchers since 1981 have almost halved. Those facts show that the necessary search and seizure operations are not being carried out, and certainly not to the same extent as previously. Operations of that type must increase.
The Secretary of State should consider a tougher sentencing policy. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman is questioned about this matter, he says that it is the responsibility of the courts. Of course, the courts must sentence according to law. He has the power to impose mandatory minimum sentences which would ensure that tougher sentences are available for terrorist crimes.
I do not wish to alarm the House, but if hon. Members examine what happens in our courts they will discover that one-third of those found guilty of terrorist crimes walk through the doors of the courtrooms as free men. Such crimes range from membership of illegal organisations up to and including participation in murder. Three-quarters of those found guilty of being members of an illegal organisation in Northern Ireland walk free, having received non-custodial sentences. I thought that we were supposed to be at war with the IRA. What type of deterrent is that to any peson belonging to a terrorist organisation?
Let us imagine a group of 100 IRA men. Apart from the fact that only 40 per cent. will ever be arrested, about 35 of the 40 who are arrested will be found not guilty of an offence. Of those found guilty, one-third will receive non-custodial sentences. Those who end up in prison receive 50 per cent. remission on their sentences, assuming that they do not escape. That is no deterrent to terrorists in Northern Ireland. Surely, a tougher sentencing policy can be divised. The Secretary of State cannot dodge the issue by saying that it is a matter for the courts.
The right hon. Gentleman could also gain more support from the community in Northern Ireland. The people in Northern Ireland wish to see the Dominic McGlincheys of the world behind bars. They could help if they knew what Dominic McGlinchey looks like. When I pass police stations on this side of the Irish Sea the posters outside are for persons wanted for rape, theft or less significant crimes.
I see wanted posters in England. Why cannot we have wanted posters in Northern Ireland, so that the public could give information that would help the security forces to track down such people? If we need to encourage certain sections of our community to give information, we could offer a reward. It is not unusual in Britain to offer a reward for information leading to the arrest of a wanted person. Why cannot the Secretary of State press for such a policy, so that the public can be of assistance to the security forces?
The Secretary of State should also speak to the Chief Constable about the RUC's overtime. We are told that there are no restrictions on overtime and that the Chief Constable is getting all that he wants. However, there are restrictions on overtime in Northern Ireland. I recall the Sunday News being raided by the RUC a few months ago, because the newspaper had a police document and had printed an article implying that at a hall formerly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), but now, because of boundary changes, in my constituency, a young girl had been killed with a gun known to belong to the INLA. The investigating officer wrote a report saying that his investigations had been curtailed because of overtime restrictions, and that the killer of that girl had got away free as a result. If that happened in that case, it could have happened in many others. Of course, the police got the document and the story away from the Sunday News.
There is a restriction on overtime. Everybody in Northern Ireland knows that. People can speak to policemen, and know that there is a restriction on the number of hours worked and the effect of that. For example, police vehicles are repaired at the workshop in Lislea drive. However, there are never more than 30 vehicles in for repair. As a result of the overtime restrictions, almost 200 vehicles are waiting to be repaired. The number is increasing every day, and vehicles are now being sought in the stations. The police need them, but they cannot get them because of the overtime ban. Things have reached such a stage that the workers at the Lislea drive workshop have gone on an unofficial go-slow.
The Secretary of State must realise that there are restrictions on overtime, and must ensure that no such restrictions on those carrying out operational duties or on those who give support to them, hinder them in their fight against terrorism. The Secretary of State implies that he seldom receives any suggestions, but I could mention several. If he wants to help the border area, he should increase the number of SAS men. There is great respect in Northern Ireland for the SAS-type activity. It has had advantages in many parts of the world, as well as in Northern Ireland. It is a sort of covert operation. However, I realise that there are limitations on what the Secretary of State can tell the House about SAS duties in the Province. Nevertheless, I hope that he will give an assurance to the people of Northern Ireland that there is a sufficient number of SAS men along the border area now, and that he is prepared to consider an increase in the number.
The Secretary of State implied that people would have tough things to say about him personally. I know that my words will not have given him much comfort, but I have not made any personal attack on him. I realise the difficult job that anybody in his position has to do. In all my dealings with him, I have respected his sincerity. But a man can be sincere and still be sincerely wrong. The right


hon. Gentleman's policy on security is sincerely wrong and is costing lives in Northern Ireland. It must be changed. He must face that reality and change the policy before there are any more deaths in the Province. Its failure is written in the blood of innocent victims in our Province, and the Secretary of State cannot dodge that. It must be changed, and changed now.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) on his maiden speech and thank him for reminding us of Johnny McQuade. I remember the time when Johnny McQuade questioned President Nixon in the Grand Committee Room. President Nixon did not know what had hit him. It was a most enjoyable evening.
I fully appreciate the feelings of all those hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have spoken this evening and share in full measure the horror and anger that they have expressed about what has been taking place, in particular in the past few weeks. But I feel especially sorry for the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers, because they are in a no-win situation. Like their predecessors, they have an unenviable job.
The interventions in the Secretary of State's speech brought home to me the fact that it is a pity that the leaders of the four parties in Northern Ireland—or the three which turned down the invitation—did not accept the Secretary of State's invitation to meet the Chief Constable and the GOC. Some of the questions that they have been asking tonight could have been answered at that meeting.
Alliance Members who try to educate ourselves about Northern Ireland affairs cannot understand why it is not possible for the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) to be present with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on such occasions. They meet each other in the House and in the European Parliament. I am sure that they sometimes even drink together.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I cannot allow that remark to pass. I am known as a teetotaller — as one who is totally opposed to the Devil's buttermilk.

Mr. Ross: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen take a cup of tea together. Certainly they both utterly condemn the violence in the Province, and I do not understand why they cannot now meet. There has been much criticism of the Chief Constable. I have always liked and respected the Chief Constable when I have met him. I cannot speak with the first-hand knowledge of other hon. Members, but I cannot believe that it is impossible for the hon. Gentlemen to meet him together and put the questions to him direct.
I fully support the Secretary of State's declaration that the defeat of terrorism must be our principal concern. I realise that some hon. Members on the Official Unionist Bench and also on the Opposition Benches will have knowledge of the debate that took place at my party's assembly, and the visits by some young members of my party to the Province and to the South. I have dissociated myself from some of the remarks that have been made following those visits.
Over the years I have tried to inform myself on the problems of Ireland, but I never expected to see a picture in an English newspaper of a British citizen in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) — a farmer's wife —protecting her husband with a rifle while he ploughed the fields. That struck home. I felt that I just could not accept such a situation in our country.
No one has mentioned the continuing condemnation by many leading politicians in the South of the activities of Sinn Fein, and in particular of Mr. Gerry Adams. After some of his remarks in the South the other day, a senator called for his arrest. We should also not forget that at the moment an Englishman is being held hostage for a ransom of £5 million. One wonders what on earth is happening to that poor man.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) made a brave speech. I am not brave enough to go all the way with him. I truly believe that the only sensible way forward now—this is not the time for new initiatives—is to get the closest possible co-operation between the Dublin Government and ourselves in the defeat of terrorism and the strengthening of economic links. Some developments in the energy field, for example, seem to make a great deal of sense.
Despite the tragic events in recent weeks, there is a continuing need to increase public confidence not only' within the Province but in the United Kingdom generally and in America and Europe. That is why in the evidence that we have submitted to Sir George Baker and, in a resolution recently approved by my party's council. we are calling for some substantial revisions of the 1978 Act. We hope that they will be included among his recommendations when they are published some time in the new year.
We should like to go rather beyond his remit and seek the establishment of an independent prosecution service in Northern Ireland. We know that that is being studied for England and Wales, but we believe that it is even more important for the Province.
The reintroduction of jury trial is of course problematical. I welcome the words of the hon. Member for Antrim, North on that subject. No doubt jury trial in most terrorist cases is impractical, but we believe that juries should sit in non-terrorist cases unless the prosecuting counsel can convince the High Court judge that there would be a substantial risk of intimidation or a perverse acquittal if they did. There could be a further safeguard of a right of appeal against the judge's decision in such cases.
A less satisfactory alternative that has been mentioned this evening would be to give the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland discretion to de-schedule all scheduled offences rather than the limited number over which he can use his discretion at present. We prefer the former alternative because we believe that we should avoid Executive de-scheduling.
We have always felt that it would be highly desirable for serious cases heard in the absence of a jury to be heard by three judges rather than one as at present. I accept that that may cause problems, because there is a shortage of judges. We should pay a tribute to the courage of those who administer justice in the Province, some of whom have lost their lives in so doing.
The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 is to have a fixed life of five years as a result of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations. We believe that it is


important that the emergency provisions legislation adopts the same limitation, although we would rather see it reduced to three years.
The need to tape-record interviews is as pressing in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I trust that that will be another of Sir George Baker's recommendations. We could well go further and videotape.
I appreciate the problems of the Royal Ulster Constabulary over supergrasses. I cannot condemn the practice outright. I have expressed anxiety when the system has been used to obtain convictions in England and Wales, which is something that many commentators tend to forget.
I remind the House that there are three prisons in my constituency. I was involved in a case when a man was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment solely on the evidence of a well-known supergrass. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal, but I have grave doubts about it. Nevertheless, the case did not raise an outcry in this country, but immediately such a system is used in Northern Ireland everyone is up in arms.
I believe that the National Council for Civil Liberties is reviewing the problem. I am convinced that any amendment of present practices must apply throughout the United Kingdom and not just to Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North on that.
We must plainly wait to see what Sir George Baker recommends, but in the meantime we must support the renewal of the emergency provisions and hope that some of our proposals will have been taken on board before we discuss the renewal of these powers again.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I say that the House may wish to know that the Minister hopes to reply to the debate at about 11.15 pm. Four hon. Members are still hoping to speak, so brief speeches would be a great help.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I studied what had been said in previous debates on this subject to prepare for this debate. I thought that it would be useful to see whether anything had changed. I found that the fundamental need to protect the civil liberties and human rights of the people of Northern Ireland was emphasised. I believe that that is an ideal to which everyone can subscribe. However, we know that it is impossible to protect civil liberties when the rule of law does not exist. When we talked about civil liberties in the past, we related it mostly to those who came before the courts, but we tended to forget those who must stand up to the violence that has pervaded Northern Ireland for 13 years.
Hansard has shown that the Ministers who introduced such debates always started by rehearsing where the rule of law has failed. This time last year, the Minister discussed how it had failed in the aftermath of the Ballykelly bombing. This year, sadly, we are talking about the murder of Edgar Graham, who was a great personal friend. He was an upright young man with great integrity, and he set an example to many politicians in that he never

sought short-term political advantage but always looked for the long-term advantage to the people of Northern Ireland in any decision that he made.
During those 13 years there have been many incidents equally as sad as the murder of Edgar Graham. We have been told many times that there is no panacea for the trouble, but we have neither asked for nor expected a panacea. However, we recognise that the laws of the land must be put into effect. There is no point in having laws if they fail, yet the rule of law has failed under successive Governments during the past 13 years. We have not obeyed the basic rules that must be employed in the fight against terrorism. The first basic rule is that one never concedes anything to the terrorist. Unfortunately, during those 13 years terrorists seem to have been too wise for successive Governments, because hiding behind the minority—as it is called—Roman Catholic population, they have squeezed concession after concession from Governments.
We have not realised that the introduction of proportional representation for elections in Northern Ireland is a disaster. It has done nothing to get the people together; rather it has provided the opportunity for irresponsible and violent minorities to abuse the ballot box. The House is very wise not to be tempted to set out on the proportional representation trail in Great Britain.
We have failed to curb the glorification of violence, which we see continually on our television screens and hear on the radio. The funeral of the two terrorists shot by the security forces at the weekend was not portrayed as a defeat for terrorism but was used as an opportunity to glorify it. The so-called hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and some of his cohorts were in the forefront of the funeral cortege, thus promoting the cause of terrorism and the IRA.
We have also failed in some small, but important, matters. We have not curbed illegal voting in elections. We hear the oft-recited defence by people who are caught voting illegally, "But your honour, it is a great Irish tradition." Nonsense. There is always a degree of personation no matter in what country an election takes place, but the organised personation that occurs in Northern Ireland is a disgrace to a democratic system.
We have failed to say to the Social Democratic and Labour party, "Certainly you will have your rights and the Catholic minority will have its rights, but those rights are within a state whose sovereignty is inviolate."
We have failed to listen to the cry for help from the minority community who want better security and who want the godfathers taken out of their midst even if it means the internment of Gerry Adams, Danny Morrison, Owen Can-on and such people. I have been told again and again by those belonging to the minority, "We do not want them in our midst. If you can take them away then our 17 and 18-year-old sons will be safe." It is difficult for parents to know where their sons of that age are. Many of them do not want their children to engage in violence, but how attractive to the young men those people must have seemed on television on the day the funerals took place. Here were people being portrayed on national television as heroes. It was shameful.
The Secretary of State said that perhaps we would be hard on him today. I have no intention of being hard on him. I know he said that he was well able to stand up to anything I could throw at him. I am able to stand up to the little innuendo that I should not say too much about the


security forces and how they should operate lest I appear to be something of a know-all. I have never claimed that I have more knowledge than any member of the security forces in Northern Ireland. The last time he used that argument with me he said that there were a lot of people who had more experience than I had. That is a different thing. I probably have as much experience as anyone he cares to mention.
Successive Governments have failed to listen to the suggestions we have made. We know the country and what is required. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) showed clearly that the basis of the problem lies on the frontier between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. I was disappointed when the Secretary of State admitted that there was a Dundalk corridor. Of course, he was absolutely right. He could have admitted that there was a Monaghan salient or a Fermanagh freeway. These are routes by which the terrorist has no trouble importing guns and explosives. If he has been away for a training session in Donegal, he comes along and commits another murder or two or three. If things get too hot and the security forces are closing in on him, he can disappear across the frontier again into the haven of the Irish Republic.
I am disappointed again that the best that the Secretary of State could do yesterday was to reintroduce the Baldonnell panel, about which I had forgotten. It was introduced by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in 1974 but had lapsed and fallen into disuse. I am not sure that something that had fallen into disuse nine years ago is something we expect in 1983.
None the less, I was encouraged by the tone of what the Secretary of State said. I know how deeply he feels about the problems, and that he regrets every death and would do all in his power to prevent any further deaths occurring. It is in recognition of that that we are here tonight telling him that we want to help, and we want a reasonable solution, but he must listen to the elected representatives of the people. He cannot go on telling us that he relies only on the advice of the Chief Constable and the GOC. It is unfair to put the GOC in that position, because he acts in response to the Chief Constable.
What about the Chief Constable's assurances that he had enough men? I said earlier today that, in about 100 square miles in a part of my constituency on a number of nights—I have watched this carefully—there are four or five men on duty after midnight until 8 o'clock in the morning.
I do not have much faith in the performance of the Chief Constable, I am sorry to say. When we criticised him, he got a vote of confidence from the Police Authority. Let me tell the House about that vote of confidence. One would have expected that the Police Authority met as a body, discussed the performance of the Chief Constable and issued the vote of confidence, but that was not so. The chairman of the Police Authority decided to draft a vote of confidence which, I have reason to believe, he informed the Chief Constable he would be circulating among members. Each member of the Police Authority was telephoned and asked, "Will you append your name to this? Remember, we appointed the Chief Constable, and we had better back him up. So-and-so and so-and-so have already agreed to this, so will you?" What an easy way to get a vote of confidence—but what does it mean?

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose——

Mr. Maginnis: I shall not give way, as I have been asked to hurry.
Let me now deal with the Dowra affair, because again the Chief Constable has said that there no allegations against him. He is right, but what happened was that the commissioner of the Garda wrote to the Chief Constable with a list of disturbing facts and suggested that the Chief Constable should investigate those facts. I am told that the Chief Constable responded by saying that the allegations were unfounded. The commissioner replied that he had not made any allegations, but had reported the disturbing facts and wanted them investigated. It would be wise for the Secretary of State or the Police Authority to encourage the Chief Constable to conduct an inquiry into the Dowra affair, and then it could be put behind us once and for all, for it is affecting the morale of every man in the RUC.
We have received other assurances. For example, we had an assurance from the Irish Republic that the Criminal Law Jurisdiction At would be the panacea in that if we did not catch the terrorists in Northern Ireland we would get them in the Irish Republic and bring them to trial. Later I read in a new publication that the Garda assistant commissioner, Joe Ainsworth, under instructions from the Taoiseach, from Charles Haughey, told Ministers and officials that they could not afford to implement that Act. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not know that when she was in Dublin for meetings. So much for silver teapots.
We were told officially last week that RUC personnel were not patrolling close to the frontier. It would be ridiculous to expect them to patrol there because they are neither trained nor equipped to carry out the military operation that they would undoubtedly be called on to carry out were they patrolling right up to the frontier. The RUC will not be effective in that area until we provide military cover, and that cover will require one third of the Regular Army troops who, the Secretary of State has assured me, are based in Northern Ireland.
They would need to be situated in 75 firm bases; and by "firm bases" I do not mean that the soldiers in them would never move out. They would be bases from which consistent and well co-ordinated patrolling could take place over the whole length of the frontier. It would need one base every four miles with a platoon in every base, so that 35 men would be responsible for patrolling to a depth of two or three miles a length of frontier four miles wide. That would not seal the frontier, but it would dominate the area, allow the rule of law to operate and permit the men of the RUC to move towards the frontier without feeling —indeed, without the almost sure knowledge—that they may be blown up by a land mine.
Once we had established domination along the frontier by the Regular Army, the RUC would be more effective because they could operate in smaller numbers. Perhaps I should not have said that, because last night I came across an RUC patrol close to the frontier comprised of two men and one vehicle. While, therefore, we do not want smaller patrols, they would patrol with more confidence.
The UDR would, of course, provide internally an excellent back-up to the RUC. About 32,000 members of the Northern Ireland community have served in the UDR since its inception. If during that period a minute number of the members of that force have stepped outside the law, that must be viewed against the background of the vast majority of those 32,000 members who have not, and of


recognises that 136 members of the regiment have been murdered by terrorists, 108 of them were off duty and doing their ordinary day-to-day work.
If the Secretary of State, in replying, were to advocte the policy that I have advocated today, there would be no reprisal killings because there would be a new confidence within the community. Witnesses would not be frightened to come before the courts. An amazing thing happened some time ago when a policeman was murdered after coining out of chapel in Armagh. Although 300 people came out with him, there was not a single witness. No one saw anything. The opposite is also the case. Two terrorists were shot in Coalisland on Sunday last, and I think that half the country saw that.
We would have no need for Diplock courts and no need for supergrasses. If that were the case, I believe that, in a years' time, we would have no need to renew the Act.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I shall try to be brief, as we have had many long speeches today.
I believe that we shall be here in 20 years' time—certainly in 10 years' time—if the type of debate to which I have listened umpteen times in the past 10 years continues as it has today. We have not discussed seriously anything other than security. The political realities of Northern Ireland, which spawn the terrorism, have not been discussed. We shall all be here discussing the problems in years to come unless we grapple with them.
The speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was, as usual, arid and barren and conveyed the impression that terrorism comes from only one side. One would think that there had never been any Shankhill "butchers" or bombings from the Unionist side. The Labour party abominates terrorism. We are completely opposed to it, from whichever source it comes—from the Unionist side or from the other side. The appalling murder of Mr. Graham yesterday, about which I spoke, shocked us beyond measure. I wish to reiterate that and place it on the record.
The great danger now is that any increase in this senseless slaughter, even one more dreadful murder, especially that of someone as prominent as Mr. Graham, could produce a landslide into the abyss. The hon. Member for Belfast, East said what some of us have been saying for years, when even Labour Front Bench spokesmen were telling us how much better things were becoming. Many of us warned that things would get worse unless some political solution to the problem of Northern Ireland was found. It is frightening to hear the cynicism in some quarters when one says that the deeper solution is political and that what is happening has been spawned by the failure to find a political solution after that border was drawn around an in-built Protestant majority, which was bound to produce what it has produced.
It is against a background of continuing unrest that the hon. Member for Belfast, East confesses that the emergency provisions legislation has done no good. Indeed, the situation is worse than when the legislation was introduced. There must be something profoundly wrong when the situation is admitted to be worse than it has ever been. It must not be divorced from the political background, so complex and intractable, which faces us

all. We must try to maintain law and order — [Interruption]—without the crude interruptions that come from certain quarters.

Rev. William McCrea: Come on, Gerry Adams, speak up.

Mr. Flannery: —and observe civil rights and freedom of the individual. At the same time, we must try to maintain law and order, despite the presence of disorderly Members such as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who is comparatively new to the House. Between 17,000 and 18,000 arrests have taken place since 1978 and about 1,000 convictions have resulted. If the killings and arrest had taken place here on the mainland, there would have been perhaps millions of arrests as well as dreadful killings and maimings. The hon. Member for Belfast, East never mentioned how many arrests there would have been and how few convictions would have resulted. This must surely be a matter of great concern to us all.
When will we receive the report of the review body, for which we are all waiting, which will tell us how the Act has dealt with the problem? The upsurge in recent weeks is appalling to us all, but what is more appalling is that we all know that we shall face it with despair because nothing will be done about it. The Unionists adopt an intractable attitude to the minority community and the minority community makes it plain that it will not go to the Assembly because there is no chance of its ever winning the majority vote. It is in permanent subservience to a pseudo-democracy which has spawned all the killing.
In the Diplock courts there are no juries. They are presided over by one judge. In addition, we have supergrasses. There is one judge who sits alone without a jury or assessors. In front of him is likely to appear a perjured murderer who proceeds to condemn his friends. There is such cynicism that the system is considered reasonable. We know that every aspect of natural justice is being violated. When every violation takes place, a new layer of paramilitaries is formed. It is probably formed by young people who are appalled at what is happening in the violation of justice and the way in which people are put away on the word of the so-called supergrasses. If that is what we want to happen in Northern Ireland, we deserve not to solve the problem. We are conniving at the problems by not grappling with them in a proper manner.
Does anyone really believe that the Diplock procedure is a substitute for a proper trial or a serious attempt to get to grips with the political background which has produced this horrific situation? The issues are virtually never discussed politically even though we all know that it is basically a political problem and that the solution will have to be political. I fear that the emergency powers, alongside the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the last Committee sitting of which took place this morning, will steadily become permanent and will wrongly be seen as a substitute for a real political analysis culminating in real democracy in Northern Ireland.
This morning the emergency provisions were regarded as permanent. The idea of their being temporary was not mentioned until the Minister reintroduced it in his final speech. The mentality that regards the provisions as permanent now adds to the sense of hopelessness that hon. Members feel about the intractable problem in Northern Ireland. It is true that we are not getting any further in this


matter. The melancholy lists of gaoling and killing will go on forever, unless we get down to a proper discussion of the issues.
Communal politics and tribal groupings, where one group, because it is bigger than another, is always bound to win, are no substitute for political democracy and are bound to produce killings. That must be changed, or the killing will go on. If the mentality that produces that killing does not come to grips with what is occurring and there is no discussion with the rest of Ireland, we shall be saying the same things in six months, a year or 10 years. No amount of emergency provision and prevention of terrorism legislation will solve the problem of the lack of democracy that produced the killings.
Terrorists and murdereres could not flourish in a society in which all the people, across sectarian barriers, elected representatives with no sectarian prejudices. The Assembly is a complete failure. It is failing because it is seen by the minority community as an attempt to restore the old Stormont. That is why the minority community will not go into the Assembly. The same people will be in it, and there will be the same lack of democracy that existed previously. The Assembly is seen as a latter-day attempt to legitimise the domination of one tribe over the other when such domination has failed because of the lack of any real cross-community democracy, such as exists in the rest of the United Kingdom.
So long as that attitude exists, the terrorists will have their day. No amount of security can solve the problems of Northern Ireland. Many of my hon. Friends believe that more and new efforts must be exerted to involve both communities in the democratic process in a way that they have never been involved before.
It is getting late. I have sat in the Chamber all day. I have been the only Labour party speaker, apart from those on the Opposition Front Bench. We are the main Opposition, but we were not allowed to enter the debate until the last minute.

Rev. William McCrea: Where are the others?

Mr. Flannery: To underline our belief that no proper debate and discussion has occurred on any matter but security, some of us will vote against these emergency provisions as a protest, because nothing will be done about them. They will continue forever unless there is a political discussion.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I deliberately delayed replying to the debate to allow as many hon. Members as possible to make contributions, especially those who have the immensely difficult task of representing Northern Ireland.
We have had a very wide-ranging debate on security issues, although that is not surprising, because we are discussing the renewal of the emergency provisions legislation. In a sense, I am helped by having only a short time in which to reply, because it is inappropriate for me to go into any detail about the emergency provisions Act while the review of Sir George Baker is under way. We hope that, within two or three months, he will have reported, and then we hope that there will be an opportunity for the House to debate his recommendations and to look at the future of the legislation.
I apologise if, in the light of the short time that I have, I do not deal with every intervention made. I pay tribute

to the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker). He spoke with felicity, humour and charm. We greatly enjoyed hearing his speech. We look forward to hearing him speak on other occasions. There are only two matters on which I take the mildest of issues with the hon. Gentleman. First, he used the phrase "the acceptable level of violence", perhaps giving the impression to a casual listener that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State implied that there was an acceptable level of violence, whereas my right hon. Friend said precisely the reverse and insisted that we would accept no such thing.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Army, the RUC and the UDR, to which we owe so much. I shall return to this issue in the context of another speech. I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman added his voice in criticism of the Chief Constable. However, I congratulate him. One would never have guessed that he was operating in a new sphere. We also appreciated the generous tribute that he paid to Johnny McQuade, whom we remember with such affection in the House.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Sole") made an important speech. He rightly mentioned the fundamental problem that is raised by this son of legislation—the need to balance the necessity to win the battle against terrorism with the minimum derogation from the human rights and civil liberties that we expect in the United Kingdom. It is important in that balance that we should never forget to weigh the rights of those who have been killed and maimed in the past and of those who may be killed and maimed in the future, unless the battle against terrorism is won.
The hon. Gentleman referred to supergrasses and converted terrorists. That is not a system, as it is sometimes alleged, nor is it something that is suddenly new in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole. Over a number of years, individuals have come forward to the police wishing to give evidence about the crimes allegedly committed by former associates in terrorist organisations. They come from both Republican and Loyalist terrorist groups. There is no reason why the police should ignore such information when it can be responsible for removing dangerous criminals from society and putting them where they belong, behind bars. Terrorists in Northern Ireland continue to threaten the integrity of the judicial process in the Province. As long as the proper judicial process is followed — I am convinced that it is—it is right that we should make use of converted terrorists to get those dangerous men out of circulation.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to prosecution for plastic baton round deaths or injuries. Every single case when a death has been caused by a plastic baton round has been thoroughly investigated by the RUC. In every case, the papers have gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He has decided in those cases that there is no evidence upon which he can secure a conviction. He applies the same standards in those cases as he does to the others with which he has to deal. It is not for Ministers, but for the judicial process to take such decisions.
I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would look at the way in which Sinn Fein and its representatives are dealt with by the Administration. I shall not expand on that.
The hon. Gentleman made a most disgraceful attack on the Chief Constable of the RUC. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe at the man who has the most difficult job as chief police officer, probably in the world, enforcing the law in a democratic society that is under terrorist attack. It has been my privilege, because of my ministerial responsibilities, to work closely with the Chief Constable. I have come to admire the commitment that he puts into his job. I am glad of the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's complete confidence in his work. He devotes his considerable energy, skill and experience to the full to discharging his onerous responsibilities on behalf of the entire community in Northern Ireland. A little more support from some of the political leaders in the Province would not go amiss as he tries to tackle his difficult task.
For the hon. Member for Antrim, North to accuse my right hon. Friend of having failed the people of Northern Ireland, just about takes the biscuit. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman ever asks himself whether he has failed the people of Northern Ireland by the intransigence and inflexibility that he has shown in the past?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Under-Secretary of State should come to Northern Ireland, fight a seat and see how he gets on.

Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discharges his duties to Northern Ireland with immense commitment and effort.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the interval between arrest and trial in Northern Ireland, which is a matter of concern to the Government.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, the courts and the police continue to cope well with processing the many cases involving serious offences. The average time between arrest and trial obviously fluctuates, depending on many factors, not least the rate of arrests. We monitor the position carefully. No one wishes there to be undue delay between arrest and trial. I shall refer to some statistics to show that the waiting time is decreasing. In September 1977, the untried prison population was 701; in 1981 the figure was 490, and in September 1983 the figure was 370. Hon. Members may say that the figure is too large, but the movement is in the right direction. We shall continue to monitor the position and seek an improvement as rapidly as we can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) referred to the "Dowra", or "McGovern" affair, as it is sometimes called. One must recognise that occasionally there will be misunderstandings in dealing with the sensitive subject of co-operation between police forces on different sides of a border that witnesses the passage of terrorism, arms and ammunition. I regret any episode that leads to the misunderstanding. It arose because, when the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana first made his representation, the Chief Constable of the RUC decided that the issue should be treated as a formal complaint, and therefore to put in train the statutory procedures which follow the lodging of any such complaint. It later became clear that that was not the intention of Commissioner Wren. A full explanation of the background to the incident has been sent to the Commissioner. I wish everything humanly possible to be done to ensure that misapprehension does not continue

with police forces on either side of the border. Nothing must be allowed to affect the security co-operation between the RUC and the Garda. I assure the House that co-operation in that area is excellent.
My hon. Friend also referred to the Enniskillen training centre. The police authority is awaiting clarification about some matters from Her majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary who is advising the authority. Once the police authority receives their final clarification, it will put proposals to the Secretary of State. The matter remains with the police authority. I hope that in a few months progress can be made.
My hon. Friend also referred to the Baker report. He spoke with great authority in the debate, as he has previously, and I hope that he will give evidence to Sir George Baker. I am sure that Sir George would welcome the experience and knowldege of my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) made an important contribution to the debate. He aserted that the three prongs of British policy in Northern Ireland in recent years were the criminalisation of the paramilitaries, the Ulsterisation of the security forces which were continuing, but that the construction of proper political structures, which would involve the two traditions in Northern Ireland, had been abandoned. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The whole thrust of Government policy, with the White Paper of last summer, the Northern Ireland Act 1982 and the establishment of the assembly, was designed to ensure that there was a framework to enable the political leaders in Northern Ireland to come forward with proposals. The hon. Gentleman said that the Unionists have a veto on progress in these matters. Within the framework that we have established, and the opportunities that we have offered, both sides have the opportunity to veto further progress.
We can only encourage them to move foward——

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the
Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted
business):—

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 10.

Division No. 92]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Robert


Amess, David
Eyre, Reginald


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Anthony
Farr, John


Beggs, Roy
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Berry, Sir Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayward, Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hind, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brinton, Tim
Lang, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Burt, Alistair
Lightbown, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Lord, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lyell, Nicholas


Coombs, Simon
McCrea, Rev William


Cope, John
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Couchman, James
Macfarlane, Neil


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacGregor, John


Dorrell, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Dover, Denshore
Maclennan, Robert






Maginnis, Ken
Ryder, Richard


Malins, Humfrey
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Malone, Gerald
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Maples, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mather, Carol
Scott, Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Merchant, Piers
Speller, Tony


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Spencer, D.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Murphy, Christopher
Stern, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Newton, Tony
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Nicholson, J.
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Norris, Steven
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Philip
Tracey, Richard


Osborn, Sir John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, John (Harrow W)
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Waddington, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Penhaligon, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Watts, John


Powley, John
Whitney, Raymond


Prior, Rt Hon James
Wilkinson, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Raffan, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Rathbone, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Rhodes James, Robert
Wood, Timothy


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Yeo, Tim


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. John Major.


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)



Rowe, Andrew





NOES>


Bermingham, Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Cohen, Harry
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Hume, John



Maynard, Miss Joan
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, David
Mr. Dennis Canavan and Ms. Harriet Harman.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.

Select Committee

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Order No. 99 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended, as follows:

Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 1, leave out '9' and insert '11'.
Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 3, leave out '9' and insert '11'.
Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 4, leave out '9' and insert '11'.
Paragraph 2, in the Table, leave out item 9.
Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 11, leave out '9' and insert '11'.
Paragraph 2, in the Table, after item 11, insert 'Trade and Industry/Department of Trade and Industry/11/3'.
Line 20, leave out 'Industry and Trade' and insert 'Trade and Industry'.
Line 38, at end insert—

(d) to communicate to any other such committee its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest, and
(e) to meet concurrently with any other such committee for the purposes of deliberating, taking evidence, or considering draft reports. '—[Mr. Biffen.]

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr.Beith), in line 8, at end insert—
Paragraph 2, in the Table, item 14, leave out '11' and insert '13'.

It being after Ten o'clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Ordered,
That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Sir Antony Buck, Mr. Ray Ellis, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. James Pawsey. Mr. Bill Walker and Mr. Ken Weetch be members of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
That Mr. Harry Cowans, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Mr. Tim Rathbone and Mr. Merlyn Rees be members of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting.
That Mr. Barry Sheerman be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Eric Deakins be added to the Committee.
That Mr. Don Dixon be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Mr. Norman Hogg be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Cope.]

Rashida Abedi

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Humfrey Malins: The quality of compassion is a rare but very precious quality. Governments who exercise it endear themselves to the people, strengthen the ties between Government and the electorate, and reinforce the principle of Government by consent.
In this Adjournment debate, I ask the Government to exercise compassion in what I believe to be a truly exceptional immigration case. It is the case of Rashida Abedi, a 30-year-old deaf girl from Pakistan, who now lives in Croydon. Although her name may not be known in this House, I assure hon. Members that her case has fired the imagination of thousands of people in the Croydon area, who have taken it to their hearts, and who will follow this debate with great concern and interest.
I must tell the House the background. Rashida Abedi is currently living with her 47-year-old brother in Croydon but was brought up in a remote area of Pakistan. When she was 16 she contracted meningitis and was placed in hospital. She made a miraculous recovery but shortly afterwards lost the hearing ability in her left ear. Before becoming ill she had hoped to take her matriculation examinations. She tried to resume her studies, but unfortunately she could not do so. In 1973 she had another relapse in Pakistan. She was put into hospital again, and again recovered, but this time she lost her hearing in her right ear, rendering her totally deaf. Total deafness is a tragedy.
Prior to 1981, Rashida lived with her elderly widowed mother—her father had died when she was quite young—and her younger brother and sister who were aged about 18 and 17 respectively in 1981. They lived in a remote part of Pakistan. Ever since her father's death, her family had been, in effect, dependent on her elder brother Mr. Ali, who came to this country in 1968.
The family position in Pakistan was far from ideal. It gave the girl little or no hope for the future. Her elderly mother suffered badly from chronic heart disease and severe arthritis, and her health is not improving. Her younger brother and sister could not be expected to provide for her. The younger sister would almost certainly marry and have to lead her own life, and the brother had to finish his education. Marriage has not been an option open to Rashida herself.
Rashida and her family in Pakistan, pretty helpless, were supported for many years by Mr. Ali in this country. He has been here since 1968. He is a full-time British Telecom worker and is earning a substantial salary. He devoted himself to the care of Rashida while she was in Pakistan. He has remained a bachelor for the simple reason that Rashida, with her disabilities, needs his continuous help and support, both emotional and practical. She needs someone to care for her. He has made many sacrifices, and sent financial support to her in Pakistan over many years.
In the Asian family system, the elder brother has a responsibility to look after his less able brothers and sisters. Mr. Ali has courageously and without complaint undertaken that responsibility for many years.
That is the background. With the continued worsening of the family situation in Pakistan, and with nothing other

than a bleak future there both personally and medically—treatment there is quite inadequate—Rashida came to this country on 16 October 1981 to her brother's house in Croydon. She was admitted initially for six months. That period was subsequently extended until October 1982.
It may be said that, when she first arrived, her brother said that she would be here only for a short-term visit. That may be so, but we must accept that after she had been here for a while it became clear to Mr. Ali that his hopes of curing her deafness here would be disappointed. He also realised that to continue to support her in Pakistan—sending her money and visiting her often enough to give her the non-material support that she needed — was beyond his means. He realised that he could well continue to care for Rashida if she remained here with him. He saw that during her time in England she had made enormous strides in confidence, learning to live with her disability and her problems. Her way of life in this country enabled her to compensate for her deafness and be independent to a degree not possible in Pakistan. None of those things could have been known to him when he brought her here.
Rashida came for a visit, and her time was extended until October 1982. At about that time the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants argued that, on compasionate grounds, Rashida ought to be permitted to stay in the United Kingdom. That request was communicated to the Home Office and treated as an application to remain within the immigration rules. The application was for indefinite leave for Rashida to remain here as the dependant of her brother.
The Secretary of State noted that Rashida had a mother, brother and sister in Pakistan with whom she had been living, and he was not satisfied that she had no other close relations in her own country to turn to. Nor did he think that evidence had been produced to satisfy him that she was living alone in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances, including having a standard of living substantially below that of her own country. In November 1982 the Secretary of State refused her application.
Notice of appeal was given and the matter came before an adjudicator whose decision was published in June 1983. The adjudicator did not consider that Rashida circumstances, although unusual, were of an exceptionally compassionate nature. He believed that she had relatives to whom to turn in Pakistan and dismissed her appeal. I have tried to show that the position in Pakistan was such that she had no relatives to whom she could turn.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has powers to give consideration to Rashida's case outside the rules. He can justify the exercise of his discretion outside the rules in the most exceptional of circumstances. It is this discretion that I very much hope will be exercised tonight.
I said that Rashida's case had fired the imagination of countless people in Croydon. This is true. Thousands signed petitions. Literally dozens of worthy organisations have expressed concern about her case, including Croydon Council for Community Relations, Croydon Moslem Women's Association, many Croydon churches, the Moslem Assocation of Croydon, the Pakistan Welfare Association—the list is impressive and almost endless. One influential group said:
Rashida has made successful attempts to learn English and is well on the way to becoming an independent member of society. She is of course handicapped by her deafness, but she seems to be overcoming this too. Has the Home Office given


sufficient weight to the Pakistan custom that after the father's death it is the elder brother's duty and privilege to take responsibility for unmarried women? In Pakistan there are no facilities for the deaf and no one capable of looking after Rashida".
Since being in Croydon, Rashida has been a student in the English language scheme. Those responsible write of her that she is a woman of quite unusual courage. Despite her deafness, she has participated in every event that has taken place in association with the English classes that she attends. Although she has to lip read, she has managed in a short time to make consistent progress from the beginners to the upper intermediate level. She is quite determined to learn as much English as she can. She is not the sort of person to want to be dependent on others; she enjoys company and has a lot to contribute. They say that they are sure that if she is allowed to stay in Britain she will continue to progress and will go on to be an asset to the community as a whole, giving her energy towards helping others.
There are so many arguments in favour of letting her stay. In Pakistan there are no proper facilities to help her, and no relatives able to provide proper support. Here the contrary is the case. She has a brother who has devoted himself in accordance with Pakistan custom, and with support of the mother, to his younger sister's welfare. He wants to continue to do so. Rashida has never received financial support from the state and she has made extraordinarily rapid progress in learning, despite her handicap. She is truly dependent on her brother Mr. Ali and will continue to be. The nature of dependency is rather like that of father and child. His sense of responsibility and self-sacrifice are greatly to be admired.
Countless groups from welfare organisations and churches, and individuals have concerned themselves with the humanitarian aspects of Rashida's case. Quite simply, if she is allowed to stay she will continue to progress and to be an asset to the community as a whole. Send her back, and her future in Pakistan is bleak and full of misery. Here she has hope.
I very much hope that the Government will be magnanimous and will show compassion in what thousands believe to be an exceptional case, and I speak for those thousands when I say, "May Rashida Abedi stay?"

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Matins) for raising this case, which has aroused considerable concern locally, because it gives me the opportunity to explain why the Home Office made the decision that it did, and why it is not right to say that the Home Office lacks compassion.
My hon. Friend has argued the case as strongly as anyone could, and no one present for this debate could fail to have considerable sympathy for Miss Abedi. However, I must tell him that, having considered the case with the utmost care, we do not believe that Miss Abedi should be granted settlement.
Mr Syed Jafer Ali is obviously concerned for his sister's welfare, and it is not surprising that he should want her to enjoy the facilities that are available in Britain to assist those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from deafness, but we cannot admit people because we look after disabled people better than some other countries do.
The case has a long history of which the House should be informed. Mr. Ali contacted the Home Office in 1977 asking for advice on how he might bring his sister to Britain, either as a visitor or for permanent settlement. Contrary to what is stated in a leaflet published by an organisation calling itself the Friends of Rashida Abedi, there was no suggestion of her coming here to receive treatment for deafness. It was made clear at that time that she was deaf, and irreversibly so. Be that as it may, the Home Office replied to Mr. Ali——

Mr. Allan Rogers: Does the Minister accept that part of the treatment for deafness is not just restoring hearing but accommodating the deaf person in society? The basis of the argument of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) was not that Rashida came here to receive treatment, but that she came here to be accommodated in society.

Mr. Waddington: I do not doubt for a moment that that was the argument advanced by my hon. Friend, but at present I am rehearsing the history of the case. There is no doubt that the literature issued by that organisation suggested that Miss Abedi came here for medical treatment, although that was not the case. She came here after her brother had made it clear that she was irreversibly deaf.
The Home Office replied to Mr. Ali giving Miss Abedi the sensible advice that she should seek an entry certificate before travelling to Britain. That advice was not followed, and in October 1981 Miss Abedi arrived at Heathrow with her brother and sought entry as a visitor. Mr. Ali told the immigration officer that his sister had had a hard life and that he wished to give her a break from looking after her mother. After assurances were given that she was coming only for a visit and that no extension of her stay would be sought, she was allowed into the country.
I am afraid that the case turned out to be one of those where assurances are given but not honoured. However, the Home Office—which is often painted as being hardhearted—was still prepared to be generous, and when an extension was sought, and it was pleaded that Miss Abedi would definitely return to Pakistan in October 1982 because some relatives were travelling then and she could accompany them, an extension was granted. Again, the assurance was broken, and in September 1982 we received an application on Miss Abedi's behalf from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, asking that she be allowed to stay in Britain indefinitely.
Parliament in its wisdom made provision in the Immigration Act 1971 that we should be guided by rules in our operation of immigration control. Parliament has as recently as February of this year approved rules designed to limit strictly the number of people accepted for settlement here. It is not for us in the Home Office to ignore those rules or interpret them to our own convenience. The rules, while relatively generous to mothers and fathers of people settled here, reflect the wish of Parliament that we simply cannot be equally generous to brothers and sisters and more remote relatives.
What the rules say is that to be accepted for settlement a dependent sister or brother must be living alone in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances, including having a standard of living substantially below that of his or her own country and that he or she must be mainly dependent on a relative settled in the United Kingdom.
We have never argued that Miss Abedi is not dependent financially upon her brother, but it is clear that she was not living alone in Pakistan. She was sharing a house with her mother, whom indeed, it was said, she was looking after. That house was also occupied by a younger brother and sister. She was not having to endure a particularly low standard of living. She did not, therefore, qualify under the rule; a rule which I should stress was in existence long before the present Government took office. As a result, her application was refused.
When Miss Abedi appealed to the adjudicator, as was her right, he upheld the decision, saying among other things, that her circumstances, although unusual, were not of an exceptionally compassionate nature, that he was unable to accept that there were no facilities for the deaf in Pakistan and that he also did not accept that the condition of Miss Abedi's mother was so bad that she could give no assistance to her daughter. He did not add what he might have done—that Miss Abedi's mother would no doubt be very glad to have her daughter back. The argument of compassion does not flow just in one direction.
I can assure those who have been campaigning for Miss Abedi that the immigration rules are applied regardless of race. I can also assure them that we recognise that there will always be cases when it is right to act outside the rules because of exceptional circumstances, but this rule about relatives goes a long way to spell out what are exceptional circumstances. As I have explained, such circumstances do not arise in this case.
Finally, I should emphasise that Miss Abedi is not applying to stay here for treatment for her handicap, and we do not admit people for settlement simply because the facilities available here to ameliorate the lot of those suffering from a particular handicap are better than elsewhere. How could we?
For the moment, therefore, I can see no case for allowing Miss Abedi to remain here. If after her return to Pakistan there occurred a material change in her circumstances it would, of course, always be open to her to make an application for entry clearance for settlement under the provisons that I have already mentioned. Any such application would be looked at carefully and with sympathy in the circumstances then prevailing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o' clock.